[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF BLACK
FARMERS IN THE U.S.
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 25, 2021
----------
Serial No. 117-3
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-332 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California ------
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, submitted memorandum................................. 324
Carbajal, Hon. Salud O., a Representative in Congress from
California, submitted case..................................... 350
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
prepared statement............................................. 7
Submitted article............................................ 302
Submitted hearing............................................ 305
Submitted report............................................. 318
Submitted statements on behalf of:
Scott, Jr., Will, Owner, Scott Family Farms, Founder,
African American Farmers of California................. 322
Asian Business Institute & Resource Center............... 323
Kirkpatrick, Hon. Ann, a Representative in Congress from Arizona,
submitted report............................................... 375
Rush, Hon. Bobby L., a Representative in Congress from Illinois,
submitted book................................................. 348
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Submitted letters on behalf of:
Bunch, James, President/Chief Executive Officer,
Bunchology LLC......................................... 159
Davis, Webster E., Senior Policy Advisor, Family Farm
Action................................................. 160
Jones, Collis, Vice President, U.S. Policy & Strategy,
Deere & Company........................................ 163
Simpson, Duane, Vice President, North America Government
& Industry Affairs, Bayer Crop Science................. 164
Submitted presentation on behalf of Bernice Atchison, farmer
from Chilton County, AL and Pigford historian.............. 166
Submitted statements on behalf of:
Khanna, Navina, Executive Director, HEAL (Health,
Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance......... 204
Jordan, Tanya Ward, President, Coalition For Change, Inc.
(C4C).................................................. 207
Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural.......................... 208
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 5
Witnesses
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Submitted questions.......................................... 394
Boyd, Jr., John W., Founder and President, National Black Farmers
Association, Baskerville, VA................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Submitted questions.......................................... 402
Blanding, Cornelius, Executive Director, Federation of Southern
Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, East Point, GA.............. 93
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Haynie III, Philip J., Chairman, National Black Growers Council,
Burgess, VA.................................................... 98
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Rowe, Sedrick, Owner/Operator, Rowe Organic Farms LLC, Albany, GA 101
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Submitted questions.......................................... 403
Sherrod, Shirley, Executive Director, Southwest Georgia Project
for Community Education, Inc., Albany, GA...................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Submitted question........................................... 403
Cotton, Arnetta, Co-Owner and Program Facilitator, Kingdom
Community Development Services, Wagoner, OK; accompanied by
Earrak Cotton, Owner, Cattle For The Kingdom................... 106
Prepared statement........................................... 108
A HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATE OF BLACK FARMERS IN THE U.S.
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Rush,
Pingree, Sablan, Kuster, Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran,
Carbajal, Khanna, Lawson, Correa, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier,
Panetta, Kirkpatrick, Bishop, Thompson, Austin Scott of
Georgia, DesJarlais, Hartzler, LaMalfa, Davis, Allen, Rouzer,
Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Hagedorn, Balderson, Cloud, Mann,
Feenstra, Miller, Moore, and Fischbach.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Carlton Bridgeforth, Ross
Hettervig, Chu-Yuan Hwang, Anne Simmons, Ashley Smith, Parish
Braden, Caleb Crosswhite, Josh Maxwell, Jennifer Tiller, Erin
Wilson, John Konya, and Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture
entitled, A Hearing to Review the State of Black Farmers in the
U.S., will now come to order.
Welcome, and I want to thank everyone for joining us for
today's hearing. After brief opening remarks, Members will
receive testimony from the witnesses today, and then the
hearing will be open to our Members' questions. Members will be
recognized in the order of seniority, alternating between
Majority and Minority Members, and in the order of arrival for
those Members who have joined us after the hearing was called
to order. When you are recognized, you will be asked to please
unmute your microphone, and you will have 5 minutes to ask your
questions and make your statements. If you are not speaking,
please, I ask that you remain muted in order to minimize the
background noise so we can hear what our witnesses and our
Members are saying. In order to get to all of your questions,
the timer will stay consistently visible on your screen, and
your Chairman is going to be very strict. Five minutes, the
hammer is coming down. We want everybody to participate in this
extraordinary event.
And ladies and gentlemen, my opening statement.
This is a historic hearing, and I want to begin this
hearing with these words. We all know that all things work
together for good. To them, who love God, and to them, who are
called according to God's purpose, there could be no more
glorious words to use to set off this historic hearing that we
are having today. And we all are very pleased to have the
opportunity today to examine this topic which is deeply
embedded in each of our hearts, both Democrats and Republicans
hear about the plight of our Black farmers. And when our minds
and our hearts are together, we are truly doing God's will.
And so, as always, I certainly appreciate the opportunity
to work on this issue alongside my colleague, the Republican
Ranking Member of this Committee and my friend, Congressman
Thompson of Pennsylvania. And I want to thank our Secretary of
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, for appearing before our Committee
today. And this is our first Committee conversation with your
second tenure at the USDA, Mr. Secretary, and we are so
delighted and glad that you are before us today. I want you to
know, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for joining us
today.
I have heard that you are extremely busy, and I want to
just doubly appreciate your time that you are taking to speak
with us on this important and historic issue, an issue that I
know that you have been working on. I thank you for the work
that we have done together in putting forward a helping hand in
the rescue package to bring $4 million to help our farmers pay
their loans, and the $1 million that will help provide
technical support. We appreciate your working with us on that.
For decades, the discrimination against Black farmers by
the United States Department of Agriculture has been well-
documented. Reports by the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, the Government Accountability Office, and even the
United States Department of Agriculture itself describes the
discriminatory practices that were enabled by laws dating back
all the way to the 1930s. That is why I am saying this is
historic and hallowed ground that we are working on this day.
In fact, in 1997, a group of Black farmers, including Mr.
Timothy Pigford, filed a class action lawsuit against the
United States Department of Agriculture over the agency's
discrimination against Black farmers in farm loan programs and
other benefit programs, as well as over the agency's failure to
investigate racial discrimination complaints. The evidence is
in. It is before us today, and this is why this is so
meaningful for us, and why I prefaced it with that message from
the Lord that He has given to us this day to serve His purpose
that He has brought us together today, and that is to bring
justice to our Black farmers.
Well, the United States Department of Agriculture settled
this class action lawsuit, and as a part of that settlement,
some Black farmers--just some--received $50,000. Now many of my
House colleagues may think that $50,000 is indeed a lot of
money, but when a new tractor costs as much as $\1/2\ million,
$50,000 is barely enough for a down payment on a reasonably
good used tractor.
It isn't enough to make improvements to the land. It may
not even be enough to finance next year's purchases of seed and
fertilizer. And in my frank opinion, $50,000 is not enough to
make up for the decades of discrimination and generational
wealth that has been lost among Black farming families, losing
the land and the livelihood of our Black families. Black farms
are, by and large, Black family farms.
And further, adding insult to injury, Black farmers were
saddled with IRS tax bills from that Pigford settlement,
leaving many of them worse off than before they even got the
$50,000. And that is why what we did together in the bill we
just passed--when people say what is this in here talking about
paying the tax bill, it is because we learned the Pigford bill.
So, there is money here that takes into consideration of the 20
percent over what we are getting so that those taxes are paid
for, because the IRS uses that money as income, and they tax
that loan forgiveness. I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for
helping us put that package together.
In short, the Pigford settlement was too little, it was too
late for our Black farmers who lost their farms and livelihoods
due to longstanding, systemic discrimination. And this systemic
discrimination continues to be felt by Black farmers right
today, who are still disadvantaged in our United States
Department of Agriculture programs.
This festering wound on the soul of American agriculture
must be healed. This isn't just a festering wound in the Black
farming area. It is a festering wound on all of agriculture,
because we have to excise and heal this wound so that once and
for all, my fellow Members, we will be able to make the
statement that we no longer have racial discrimination in our
United States Department of Agriculture, and that we want our
glorious and wonderful world of agriculture to be open, to have
opportunities for everybody regardless of race, creed, or
color.
That is why I have repeatedly called for a new conversation
between Black farmers and the United States Department of
Agriculture. This hearing is an opportunity for us, together
with Secretary Vilsack here joining us, to begin that
conversation, examine the Secretary of Agriculture's ideas and
reforms that I understand he is already working on. And we have
this opportunity to hear firsthand from our Secretary, and I
thank God for that.
This hearing, today, is very public, and it is a public way
to address the deep mistrust that many of our farmers of color
feel towards the United States Department of Agriculture. We
are not hiding anything here, because when you hide it, you
can't solve it. This is why this hearing is historic. And to
make sure that in an increasingly competitive agriculture
economy, no talent or ability is ignored or left behind. We no
longer can afford that approach.
The Black farmer representatives who are with us today,
they will discuss this longstanding, systemic discrimination
against our Black farmers. Who better to do that than our Black
farmers themselves? And that is why I am so glad that they are
here along with Secretary Vilsack.
In 1920, Black farm operators were 14 percent of all the
United States farmers, and in the South, over 20 percent of all
the farms were owned by African Americans. You know what it is
now? It is less than two percent, 1.8 percent to be exact.
Lack of equal access to our Federal farm loan programs is a
large reason Black farms have lost 90 percent of their land. In
1937, Congress required that locally elected county
commissioners and committees certify the eligibility of farmers
for the farm loan program. And when a farmer applied for a farm
program, the county committees received sensitive information
about the applicants. This left creditworthiness up to the
elected officials, county officials on the committee, many of
whom were landlords on this land. Talk about a conflict of
interest in addition to the racism. So, there was built-in bias
against our Black farmers for decades. And I am not speaking to
you as one that doesn't know. You are looking at your Chairman
who was born on a Black farm, my grandparents' farm, in Aynor,
South Carolina. And you talk about farming, that was the heart
of it in Aynor. I know what it was there.
For those of you who feel the number of loans is fairly
representative of the number of Black farmers today, I say they
totally miss the point. Most farmers who can't get a loan are
simply not farming. But we are here to find out why they aren't
farming, to examine the built-in barriers to the loan system
and to see how to remove them.
We have six farmers and farmer advocates here on the panel
with us today who will share their experience and solutions to
address the effects of discrimination and improve the
profitability and sustainability of our Black farmers. That is
the bottom line. We have to increase the market share of our
Black farmers. If we do that and our Black farmers are making
money, we will never have to be in the position of having to
pay lending bills if they get the proper amount of market share
to sell their products on the market.
Folks, I am noticing our good work here in Congress as
well, and I have a letter of support for policies, including
the American Rescue Plan of 2021 for relief for farmers of
color. If there is no objection, I will enter this letter of
support from a major agricultural industry giant, Bayer, for
the record.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 164.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good afternoon, I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to
examine a topic which is deeply embedded in my heart--the status of
Black farmers in the United States. And as always, I appreciate the
opportunity to work on this matter alongside my colleague, Ranking
Member Thompson of Pennsylvania.
I want to thank our newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack for appearing before the Committee today. This is our first
conversation of your second tenure at USDA, Mr. Secretary, and we are
glad you are before us today.
I know that you are extremely busy, and I appreciate your time
today to speak on this essential issue. An issue that I know you too
have wrestled with.
For decades the discrimination against Black farmers by USDA has
been well-documented. Reports by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
the Government Accountability Office, and even the USDA itself describe
the discriminatory practices enabled by laws dating back to the 1930s.
In fact, in 1997, a group of Black farmers, including Mr. Timothy
Pigford, filed a class action lawsuit against USDA over the agency's
discrimination against Black farmers in farm loan programs and other
benefit programs, as well as over the agency's failure to investigate
race discrimination complaints.
USDA settled this class action lawsuit, and as a part of that
settlement, some Black farmers received $50,000. Now many of my House
colleagues may think that $50,000 is a lot of money, but when a new
tractor costs as much as $\1/2\ million, $50,000 is barely enough to
buy even a reasonably good used one.
It isn't enough to make improvements to the land. It may not even
be enough to finance next year's purchases of seed and fertilizer. And
in my frank opinion, $50,000 is not enough to make up for decades of
discrimination and generational wealth lost from the losing of land and
livelihood among Black farmers.
Further, adding insult to injury, Black farmers were saddled with
IRS tax bills from the Pigford settlements, leaving many of them worse
off than before.
In short, the Pigford settlements were too little, too late for the
Black farmers who lost their farms and livelihoods due to longstanding,
systemic discrimination. And this systemic discrimination continues to
be felt by Black farmers today, who are still disadvantaged in USDA
programs.
This festering wound on the soul of American agriculture must be
healed. That is why I have repeatedly called for a new conversation
between Black farmers and USDA. This hearing is an opportunity for us,
together, with Secretary Vilsack, to begin that conversation and
examine the Secretary's ideas and reforms that I understand are being
contemplated at USDA.
This hearing today is a very public way to address the deep
mistrust that many farmers of color feel towards USDA, and to make sure
that in an increasingly competitive agriculture economy no talent or
ability is ignored or left behind. We no longer can afford that
approach.
The Black farmer representatives who are here with us today will
discuss the longstanding, systemic discrimination against Black farmers
and its cumulative impact on Black farming in the United States. In
1920 Black farm operators were 14 percent of all U.S. farmers.
Today, Black farmers make up less than two percent of all farmers
in the United States. Lack of equal access to Federal farm loan
programs is a large reason Black farmers have lost 90% of their land.
In 1937, Congress required that locally elected county committees
certify the eligibility of farmers for the farm loan program.
When a farmer applied for a farm program, the county committees
received sensitive information about the applicant; this left credit-
worthiness up to an elected county committee, many of whom were
landlords. So, there was a built-in bias against Black farmers for
decades. And subsequent laws and their regulations are built on that
same foundation of inequity.
For those who feel that the number of loans is fairly
representative of the number of Black farmers today, I say they totally
miss the point. Most farmers who can't get a loan are simply not
farming.
But, we are here to find out why they aren't farming, to examine
the built in barriers to the loan system and see how to remove them.
We have six farmers and farmer advocates here with us today who
will share their experience and solutions to address the effects of
discrimination and improve the profitability and sustainability of
Black farmers.
Folks are noticing our good work in Congress as well. I have here a
letter of support for policies included in the American Rescue Plan for
relief for Farmers of Color. If there is no objection, I will enter
this letter of support from Bayer into the record . . . thank you.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The letter referred to is located on p. 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd now like to welcome the distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for any opening remarks he
would like to give.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would now like to welcome the
distinguished Ranking Member, my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for his opening remarks. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Well, good afternoon, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Always a privilege and honor to work with you on the
issues that are so important to rural America, and to our
agriculture industry. And thank you for holding today's hearing
on such an important issue that I know is not only near and
dear to your heart, but it is an issue of such importance that
each and every one of us participating today, including those
tuning in to our livestream, can learn something from.
Today's hearing to review the state of Black farmers in the
United States is an opportunity to address some questions that,
quite frankly, have gone unanswered for far too long. Everyone
participating today is familiar with the 1999 class action
suit, Pigford v. Glickman, a case that alleged decades of
discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture
against Black farmers applying for farm loans and other
government assistance. Since the original Pigford settlement,
more than $2 billion have been allocated as compensation for
Black farmers.
Without a doubt, there has been discrimination at USDA in
the past against Black farmers and other socially disadvantaged
groups. Sadly, I am sure, instances of discrimination remain
today.
Now, Pub. L. 117-2, the American Rescue Plan of 2021 was
signed into law 2 weeks ago today. Among the nearly $2 trillion
in spending was $5 billion allocated for Black farmers, $4
billion of which was designated for loan forgiveness. Now, let
me be clear. I didn't vote for this bill for many obvious
reasons. The fact that the bulk of the multi-trillion-dollar
bill had virtually nothing to do with COVID was chief among
them. It was also drafted behind closed doors with no input
from the Minority party. We never get the best product whenever
either party allows that to happen. And moreover, the bill was
drafted based on hypotheticals, misinformation, and incomplete
data. Unfortunately, that is what happens when you force
through partisan legislation through budget reconciliation.
Paying off the loans of socially disadvantaged farmers may help
in the short-term, but it does very little to address the root
cause of this issue. I know my healthcare practice for 28
years, we had to get to the root cause of an issue to truly
address it long-term. I think that applies just as important
lessons apply to legislation or dealing with public policy
issues especially as egregious ones as discrimination within
agriculture programs and the support of those. It does nothing
to attack discrimination head on, and it certainly doesn't
prevent racial exclusion for Black farmers, or any other
socially disadvantaged group in the future.
Now, how did USDA leadership fail so spectacularly to allow
this ongoing discrimination for so many years? Why were bad
actors allowed to continue their comfortable government or
appointed jobs when they so brazenly allowed discrimination to
continue, even if not having directly engaged in discrimination
itself? Where was the oversight? Where was the supervision of
these bad actors? Is simply forgiving debt the best way to
address this problem and provide a forward thinking and
equitable outcome?
The American Rescue Plan of 2021 gives USDA blanket
authority to handle the funds provided through the legislation.
Well, surely leaving an unelected bureaucracy with a decades
long track record of racial discrimination to their own devices
cannot be the best way to right wrongs. We cannot forget the
progress Congress has already made by authorizing program
initiatives through previous farm bills that I am very proud of
to assist our Black and other socially disadvantaged farmers.
From credit to conservation, there have been a number of
provisions that seek to address inequalities.
For example, USDA's Farm Service Agency now targets direct
loans and guaranteed loans to eligible socially disadvantaged
farmers to buy and to operate family-sized farms and ranches.
When it comes to conservation and forestry, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service has made a concerted effort to
provide resources for socially disadvantaged and historically
underserved producers. Every year, NRCS targets five percent of
its EQIP investments, that program, for socially disadvantaged
farmers. However, over the last decade, NRCS has exceeded
expectations with 33 percent of EQIP funding going to
historically underserved producers and beginning farmers.
Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the 2018 Farm
Bill, and Mr. Chairman, recognize your efforts when it came to
doing better and providing the investments in our historically
Black 1890 land-grant universities. Thank you for your
leadership on that initiative as a part of that farm bill
process, including the $80 million in scholarships for those
HBCU students to pursue agricultural education.
While much work remains, we should look to this previous
progress as really a blueprint in our continued discussions. We
must work together as a farm team: farmers, ranchers,
producers, legislators, stakeholders, and activists alike to
reduce barriers that are preventing Black and other socially
disadvantaged farmers from participating fully in a robust farm
economy. We must support a strong farm economy that lifts up
all.
I would like to thank our Chairman once again. I would
especially like to thank our witnesses. We have an impressive
list of witnesses here. Having read and digested your written
testimony, it was certainly heartfelt. There was a lot of
passion, emotion, sharing your life stories throughout that,
and that is appreciated, much appreciated. Your testimony is
critical in helping us better understand the discrimination
Black farmers have faced, and also, it will play a crucial role
to ensure our agriculture policy does not discriminate. Rather,
it empowers farms of all races, sizes, and commodities.
I am here to listen. We are all here to listen, and I look
forward to participating in this long overdue conversation.
Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, for those
excellent comments and words.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so witnesses may begin their
testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for all of
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
Today's hearing is truly a historic one. I want to thank the
Chairman and Ranking Member for providing this opportunity to review
the state of Black farmers in our country. In California we've seen a
dramatic decrease in the number of Black farmers and unfortunately,
socially disadvantaged farmers still face many barriers. In preparation
for this hearing I requested testimony from Will Scott, Jr. founder and
President of the African American Farmers of California which I will
enter in full to the hearing record.
The additional testimony we'll hear today makes it clear that there
has been discrimination towards Black farmers by the USDA. I want to
point out that there has also been a history of discrimination against
other farmers of color, such as Asian American farmers, in my state.
We're all aware of America's shameful internment of Japanese
Americans during World War II. Many of the Japanese Americans forced
into internment camps were Pacific Coast farmers, who left behind land
they had successfully cultivated for decades. The USDA's Farm Security
Agency was tasked with confiscating the land and ensuring that
agricultural production was uninterrupted by the forced removal of
these Japanese American farmers. Approximately 6,000 Japanese American
farms were confiscated, totaling 200,000 acres, during this period.
Additionally, I have many Hmong farmers in my district, who have
also faced discriminatory barriers. In 1997, some representatives for
Hmong farmers testified before our Committee that they were unable to
secure financing through USDA due to discrimination. Local USDA offices
and banks were unwilling to provide any assistance to Hmong farmers in
submitting farm loan or disaster program applications.
And when Hmong farmers later did gain access to USDA farm loan
programs, many of them were taken advantage of by predatory lenders. In
2001, hundreds of Hmong farmers in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri
used FSA guaranteed loans to purchase poultry farms, whose values were
inflated by lenders. Hmong farmers were strapped with large mortgages
they could not repay. And when these farms failed, the Federal
Government stepped in to pay off up to 95 percent of each loan.
I will submit for the record the hearing testimony of Mr. Pheng Vue
and Charlie Jonchue Chang before the Committee in 1997, as well as a
2006 article from the Chicago Tribune about Hmong poultry farmers
losing their farm after taking out FSA guaranteed loans. Additionally,
I will submit testimony prepared for this hearing by Blong Xiong,
Executive Director of the Fresno Asian Business Institute and Resource
Center, further detailing the experiences of Hmong and Southeast Asian
farmers during the COVID-19 pandemic.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The documents referred to are located on p. 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for holding this hearing on such an important topic. I
look forward to working with Secretary Vilsack and the Committee to
continue to advance the cause of the socially disadvantaged farmers
across the country.
The Chairman. So, without objection, the chair is
authorized at any time to declare the Committee in recess,
subject to the call of the chair.
And now, let us turn our attention to our distinguished
panelists who are here with us today, and we are so delighted.
First, I am very pleased to welcome back to the Agriculture
Committee Secretary Tom Vilsack, who is now leading our
Department of Agriculture for the second time. Secretary
Vilsack needs no introduction to many of us on this Committee,
but I will note that he did serve two terms also as the
Governor of Iowa before joining the Obama Administration as the
30th Secretary of Agriculture in 2009. He was President Obama's
longest serving cabinet Secretary. He was confirmed again in
February of this year for his second tenure as Secretary.
Our next witness is Mr. John Boyd, Jr., founder and
President of the National Black Farmers Association. Mr. Boyd
is a fourth-generation farmer from Baskerville, Virginia, where
he owns and operates a 300 acre farm, raising corn, wheat,
soybeans, and beef cattle. Mr. Boyd is a familiar presence here
in Washington, D.C., as the founder and President of the
National Black Farmers Association. Since 1995, the National
Black Farmers Association has fought hard for equal treatment
for our Black farmers at USDA's Farm Service Agency,
particularly with equal access to credit. Also, Mr. Boyd was a
key spokesperson for Black farmers during both Pigford 1 and
Pigford 2. And Mr. Boyd continues to promote inclusion,
equality of opportunity for Black farmers across all sectors of
our agriculture industry across the nation. It is good to have
you here today, Mr. Boyd, and we appreciate your testimony as
well.
And now, I am pleased to welcome our third witness, Mr.
Cornelius Blanding, Executive Director of the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives. Mr. Blanding joins us today with a deep
background in management consulting and business development,
including 24 years in support of Black farmers and rural
landowners. He has served on more boards and committees than we
have time to name here today. Of note, though, are USDA's
Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, as well
as a member of the Advisory Board of the Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers Policy Research Center. We are very
grateful for your time, your experience, and your commitment to
Black farmers, and thank you also for joining us today.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Philip J. Haynie III. He is
Chairman of the National Black Growers Council. Mr. Haynie is a
fifth-generation farmer based in Reedville, Virginia, where he
and his family have a grain farm, a timber harvesting
operation, a bulk transport business, in addition to a
landscaping and excavating company. He is a graduate of
Virginia Tech. Mr. Haynie is currently the Chairman of the
National Black Growers Council. Welcome, Mr. Haynie. You are
clearly a very busy man. Mr. Haynie, we appreciate your
participation in being here today and look forward to your
excellent testimony.
Next, I would like to welcome Mr. Sedrick Rowe. Mr. Rowe is
an organic farmer from Rowe Organic Farms. Mr. Rowe is from
Albany, Georgia, where he operates a USDA-certified organic
farm, producing peanuts, hemp, watermelons, and canalfa--
canola, excuse me. His commitment to agriculture extends from
creation of the first Georgia Organic Peanut Association. His
pursuit of a Ph.D. in soil health--that is going to come in
very handy as we grapple with our climate change, no-till
farming, and cover crops. And his commitment to rural Georgia
is evident by his work with young farmers in his community, and
as a recognized leader of young farmers. He is an example of
hard work and brains, and I hear he knows how to play football,
too. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Rowe.
Our fifth witness is Mrs. Shirley Sherrod, an extraordinary
individual and a legendary leader in the fight to help her
Black farmers. Mrs. Shirley Sherrod is Executive Director of
the Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education,
Incorporated. Mrs. Sherrod is a distinguished fellow Georgian
who has served in multiple positions promoting rural
communities and agriculture. Mrs. Sherrod is a graduate of
Albany State in Albany, Georgia, and Mrs. Sherrod was the first
person of color to be appointed as Georgia's state director of
the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Development
in 2009. I am really looking forward as we move to really
address rural development and rural broadband. Mrs. Sherrod
brings years of cumulative expertise to today's panel of
witnesses as the founder and Vice President of Development for
New Communities, Inc., the nation's first community land trust,
the Executive Director of Southwest Georgia's Project for
Community Education, Inc., as well as the state lead for
Southern Rural Black Women's Initiatives for Economic and
Social Justice. Thank you so very much for sharing your wealth
of experience and knowledge with us today, Mrs. Sherrod.
And to introduce our final witness, I am pleased now to
yield to our colleague on the Agriculture Committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mann.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you for this
hearing. I am honored to introduce to you Arnetta and Earrak
Cotton, the owners of Kingdom Community Development Services
and Cattle For The Kingdom in Wagoner, Oklahoma. The Cottons
have more than 54 years of farm and ranch experience, and have
dedicated their lives to outreach and assistance for rural and
underserved communities. I am especially grateful for the
Cottons and their recent work to distribute USDA Farmers to
Families food boxes in Kansas, among other states, and through
the Rural Impact Food Pantry at the church that they lead. I
very much enjoyed getting to know the Cottons. They are
wonderful people. They are the perfect example of serving,
educating, and finding ways to farm and ranch despite
adversity. Mr. and Mrs. Cotton, we look forward to hearing your
testimony in a few minutes.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for
his introduction.
Now, we will now proceed to our historic hearing, and with
our testimony, and each of our panelists will have 5 minutes.
Now, I am going to be strict on the timer so that we can get
everybody in and heard. And so, the timer will be visible to
everyone on your monitors so that you will have a countdown to
zero, at which point, your time will be expired and I will
bring down the gavel.
So, now let us start with our distinguished Chairman of the
agriculture--the United States Agriculture Department. Mr.
Vilsack, our distinguished Secretary, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes. Please begin now.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS ``TOM'' J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much to you
and to Ranking Member Thompson for calling this historic
hearing on the state of Black farmers in America and
discrimination directed at Black farmers by the Department of
Agriculture.
In the interest of time and my belief that the testimony of
the other panelists on this panel is far more relevant and more
compelling than anything I would offer, I won't read my
prepared statement but would ask that it simply be placed in
the record.
What I wish to do today is to speak from the heart, and I
want to provide you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of this
Committee a single and solemn commitment from me and from the
team at USDA that we will, over the next 4 years, do everything
we can to root out whatever systemic racism and barriers that
may exist at the Department of Agriculture directed at Black
farmers, socially disadvantaged farmers, and people who live in
persistently poor areas in rural America.
Efforts have already been made in the past as you have
indicated, Mr. Chairman, good faith efforts to respond to
specific acts of discrimination, but more needs to be done to
dig deeper into the systemic causes and barriers that
perpetuate discriminatory practices, and to deal directly with
the cumulative effect of discrimination, the gap that now
exists between those who had the full array of services at
USDA, the full array of programs at USDA, and those who, for
far too long, have not had that array.
Work has begun already to start the implementation of
President Biden's Executive Order on equity. A working group
has been formed at USDA across all agencies, and they have
already begun to meet and to begin the work of the assessment
of services, benefits, contracts, and procurements, and
barriers and problems that may exist. I will have the benefit
of the guidance and direction for the first time ever of a
senior advisor for equity in the Secretary's office. Dr.
Dewayne Goldmon has been appointed in that position, and he
will work with our new team at the Civil Rights Office, and
with the dedicated men and women at USDA to provide advice and
direction on equity issues throughout the USDA. I certainly
look forward to the day of Senate confirmation of Dr. Jewel
Bronaugh, who once confirmed, will be the first African
American Deputy Secretary at the United States Department of
Agriculture. She and I will partner together to carry out and
fulfill the commitment that I made to you today.
Finally, I am grateful for your leadership, Mr. Chairman,
and that of Chairman Bishop, Senators Booker, Warnock, and
Warren, who helped to shepherd through the American Rescue Plan
of 2021 that contains an historic step forward in responding to
the cumulative effect of discrimination in the past by
providing debt relief for socially disadvantaged producers, by
establishing an Equity Commission to review barriers that exist
at USDA, to assist with heirs property issues, expanded
outreach, market development, and land access. These resources
will help restore some balance in the USDA COVID Covenant
Relief Approach, and allow an external review of all of our
programs at USDA.
We are prepared to move quickly, efficiently, and
thoughtfully to implement the American Rescue Plan of 2021
sections related to Black farmers and socially disadvantaged
farmers, and other sections of the Rescue Plan that relate to
rural America.
As part of my commitment to you today, I also want to
provide an additional guarantee, and that is I plan to have in
place a system of rigorous reporting, accountability, and
oversight in all of our equity efforts.
Let me be clear. There is no place at the USDA for
discrimination, none. Nor, for that matter, anywhere. This
historic moment to advance equity must not be lost, and I
intend to do everything I can to ensure that it isn't.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions from the
Committee at your pleasure.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas ``Tom'' J. Vilsack, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of
this Committee.
When I testified in front of the Senate for my confirmation hearing
a few months ago, I said the world and our nation are different today
than when I served as Agriculture Secretary in a previous
Administration. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed all our lives and
will continue to do so until enough of us are vaccinated to put COVID
behind us. Some things, however, have not changed. The horrific
shootings in Atlanta last week remind us that hatred and bigotry toward
non-white Americans and gender-based violence are real, are threats,
and must end.
I am here today to discuss with you something not unrelated--the
systemic racism and discrimination perpetuated against Black farmers,
and the history of discrimination against Black farmers by USDA that
has prevented numerous African-Americans, among other people of color,
from fully realizing the same level of prosperity and success as their
white counterparts. Unfortunately, the racism that resulted in the
precipitous decline of Black farmers over the last century has also
been evidenced among other groups of socially disadvantaged farmers.
The Congress and the Department have attempted to address the
systemic racism and discrimination that has been repeatedly documented
and found to plague the programs at USDA, especially in the farm loan
programs. In the late 1990's, Congress took the unprecedented step of
waiving the statute of limitations to enable socially disadvantaged
producers to have the chance to be heard and receive some remedy for
the harm they suffered. Congress on several occasions provided funding
to support the settlement of these cases, which was accomplished while
I was previously in this position. During this time, Congress also
acknowledged through support of outreach and other efforts the need to
address the systemic discrimination these producers encountered. USDA
also undertook efforts of self-examination and reform including through
the work of the Civil Rights Action Team and an independent assessment
and identification of barriers to USDA programs.
The history of systemic discrimination against Black farmers has
been well-documented, including a 2003 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
report which found that Black farm loan applications took 220 days to
process as compared to their white counterparts, or a more recent study
finding that although Black farmers are disproportionately
underrepresented among farmers, were foreclosed on at a higher rate
than any other race.
Despite all that has been done, clearly more needs to be done to
drive our efforts deeper. Here are two steps we must take. First, we
must redress the discrimination that has proven to be systemic,
evidently reflecting the way we have designed or implemented our
programs, laws and regulations. By focusing on determining whether
producers can prove specific, individualized discrimination, our past
actions have failed to do the necessary work tailored to addressing the
systemic discrimination socially disadvantaged producers face. Second,
we must establish the support systems to enable socially disadvantaged
producers to have the opportunity to succeed. Only with the
establishment of such systems, will we be able to finally address the
cumulative effect of discrimination and break the cycles that are
holding these producers back.
When I testified in front of the Senate, I committed to bold action
to address discrimination in all its forms across USDA agencies,
offices and programs. I pledged to ensure all programming is equitable
and works to root out systemic racism. And I promised to build one of
the most capable and diverse teams in the Federal Government, one that
looks like the America we serve.
Within the first 2 months of this Administration, USDA has
appointed and nominated an incredibly talented cadre of appointees,
reflective of a commitment to build a team that looks like America.
USDA field and state offices are often the front door of USDA for
producers and other stakeholders seeking support. From loan officers to
County Committees to State Directors, it is essential that we build a
pipeline and identify leaders for positions that represent the
diversity of America and share this Administration's commitment to
equity.
Additionally, in response to President Biden's Equity Executive
Order, EO 13985, USDA is examining opportunities to increase equity for
all underserved populations, ensuring access to healthy meals to tackle
nutrition insecurity, putting greater emphasis on our nation-to-nation
consultation practices with Tribal nations, and bringing an equity lens
to all strategic priorities, especially tackling the climate crisis and
improving the rural economy.
In short, we are building a USDA that represents and serves all of
America. Many of the new leaders who have joined our team have a
background working with producers. They share personal stories about
farmers of color being rejected for a farm loan or getting a loan too
late in planting season. Those farmers--some of whom you will hear from
today--will tell you that they never forget the sting or consequences
of that rejection, which can be long-lasting and even generational. In
addition, creating more equitable opportunities for Black farmers is a
rising tide that can lift all boats. As one study found, closing racial
gaps in wages, housing credit, lending opportunities, and access to
higher education would amount to an additional $5 trillion in gross
domestic product and six million jobs to the American economy over the
next 5 years.
I am here today to say that racism and discrimination have no place
at the Department of Agriculture. I will not tolerate it, and I am
committed to rooting it out and establishing a relationship with
producers that is built on a commitment to equity, trust and customer
service. One of the most important steps I took in my previous tenure
as Agriculture Secretary was to use authority granted under the 2002
Farm Bill to appoint voting members to over 385 Farm Service Agency
County Committees, addressing a longstanding inequity due to the under-
representation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. We must
ensure these important appointments continue and that these individuals
have privileges equal to the elected members.
I was pleased when the socially disadvantaged farmer provisions in
the American Rescue Plan began to come together. I'm grateful to you,
Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, alongside Chairman Bishop, and of
course Senators Booker, Warnock, and Chairwoman Stabenow.
From the beginning, these provisions recognized that on top of the
economic pain caused by the pandemic's impact on the economy and
agriculture, socially disadvantaged farmers are also dealing with a
disproportionate share of COVID infection rates, hospitalizations,
death and economic hurt.
The law provides funding to address longstanding racial equity
issues within the Department and across agriculture. It provides debt
relief for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to respond to
the cumulative impacts of systemic discrimination and barriers to
access that have created a cycle of debt.
The new law also provides approximately $1 billion in additional
funding for assistance and support to socially disadvantaged producers
and groups. USDA is in the process of standing up a Racial Equity
Commission to identify and address barriers across USDA. The law also
directs USDA to invest in programs to facilitate land access,
strengthen outreach and education, business development, and more. USDA
is now engaged in a process of outreach and seeking feedback directly
from socially disadvantaged producers as we implement the law. This
will be a collaborative, inclusive process.
Before I close, I want to say that all of us here should want
successful farmers. We should want more farmers. We should want farmers
who can pass their land down to the next generation--who are role
models including for young people of color to take up farming and
ranching. We should want farming to be associated with equity and
opportunity and entrepreneurship--not racism and barriers and
intimidation. We should want farmers of color to have equal opportunity
to contribute to the diverse fabric of American agriculture. We should
make clear that prosperous farmers of color means a prosperous
agricultural sector and a prosperous America. And we should do
everything we can to make that possible. You have my commitment that I
will do just that.
Thank you for your time today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much
for your very good testimony that we have just heard.
Now, I want to recognize for 5 minutes our next panelist,
Mr. Boyd. You are now recognized to begin.
Mr. Boyd, you may be muted.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. BOYD, Jr., FOUNDER AND
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BLACK FARMERS ASSOCIATION, BASKERVILLE, VA
Mr. Boyd. There we go. I am sorry. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First, glad to give
honor to God, first and foremost, and I would like to thank
you, the Ranking Member Thompson, Congressman Thompson, the
other congressperson from North Carolina, the Vice Chair, Alma
Adams. I have spent some time visiting with most Members of the
Agriculture Committee to talk to them about the plight of the
Black farmers this week, so I would like to thank all of the
Members who took time to visit with me personally to talk about
the plight of the Black farmers.
It is an honor to be here today to talk to you and this
Committee. This is a hearing, Mr. Chairman, that I personally
have been advocating for, for over 30 years. When I first began
to advocate and press the issue on Capitol Hill, we could never
even get a full Committee Agriculture hearing. The people who
are watching here, this is a very, very historic hearing and
nature. Where the only hearing we could get at that time was
with the Congressional Black Caucus in 1997 where all of the
Members participated and listened to the plight of Black
farmers. On behalf of every enslaved Black man in this country,
on behalf of every sharecropper in this country, on behalf of
every Black farmer who tilled the soil, past and present, we
thank you and this Committee for finally hearing our cries.
I am a fourth-generation farmer, and I was trained to farm
by my grandfather, Thomas Boyd, and also my other grandfather,
Lee Robinson, a sharecropper, and my father, John Boyd, Sr.,
who is probably watching this hearing today. I have a long,
rich history of farming along the Roanoke River in Mecklenburg
County, Virginia, where my great-grandfather, Andrew Boyd, was
a slave. We bring a lot of history and wealth and pride and
wisdom to this Committee today as we reach out to talk to you.
Currently today, I raise corn, wheat, and soybeans, but I
was trained as a tobacco, cotton, and peanut farmer. Many of
those things were bought out under the government buyouts, and
I, too, switched over to those types of commodities.
Today, as you know, Mr. Chairman, in your comments, we are
less than one percent of the nation's farmers, and we are
facing extinction. At the turn of the century, we were over one
million Black farm families strong, tilling 20 million acres of
land in this country. Today, we are down to 4\1/2\ million
acres of land in this country, and less than 50,000 Black
farmers in this country. We got to this place partly by the
United States Department of Agriculture and its discrimination,
and I can attest that discrimination was alive and well at the
Department of Agriculture, and we need to resolve the backlog
of complaints that exist there. We need to improve program
delivery at local offices around the country where those
farmers, even today when they walk into the office and inquire
about the Farmers of Color Act that recently passed, and we are
getting a snobby and disrespected type of tone from the local
offices, that they don't know anything about it and don't know
how it is going to move forward. That was the same type of
information that got us here in the first place, Mr. Chairman.
This Committee worked hard to get that measure passed and we
need to--I'm urging the Secretary today--and I heard his
comments--to move swiftly and implement the bill so that the
farmers can get the debt relief, and also the $29 billion that
was doled out in the Trump Administration, less than 0.01
percent went to Black farmers, 0.01 percent out of the $29
billion went to Black farmers, Mr. Chairman.
We can do better than that, and it was due to the act of
discrimination by using the same policies by rolling this
information out through the county offices, and is failing
because Black farmers don't trust the United States Department
of Agriculture. We have to find a better way to do that, and
that is why we named it, Mr. Chairman, the Last Plantation, and
rightfully so.
And today, we need to move in a more cohesive way. This
isn't a Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. It has
happened on the hands of all Presidents, and I have met with
Sonny Perdue, and it was the worst meeting in history for me as
a leader where he said Black farmers had to get big or get out.
He didn't need any tokens or people who didn't want to work on
these committees. That is the type of discrimination that Black
farmers are facing, and--it looks like I am running out of my
time, but I can talk to you, Mr. Chairman, about this all day
long.
I am looking forward to getting all of the questions and
input from this Committee, and again, thank you for having this
very, very important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Boyd, Jr., Founder and President,
National Black Farmers Association, Baskerville, VA
Dear Honorable Chairman David Scott, Vice Chair Alma Adams, and
Congressman Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Ranking Member. Thank you for the
invitation. It is truly an honor to address your Committee hearing, A
Hearing to Review the State of Black Farmers in the U.S.
I am John Boyd, Founder and President of the National Black Farmers
Association (NBFA). The National Black Farmers Association seeks
justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and
privileges within the United States ``U.S.'' and U.S. territories.
The National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) is a nonprofit
501(c)[(3)] organization with farm training sites across the United
States in rural and urban areas. NBFA is a community-based organization
with a national constituency of over 116,000 members predominately in
42 states. Our membership consists of full-time farmers, part-time
farmers, land and timber owners and many concerned citizens. To date,
the organization continues to work diligently to improve the quality of
life in rural communities through improved agricultural outreach,
technical assistance, access to credit for small farmers, family farm
business development, food distribution, rural economic development and
environmental protection with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service and
Environmental Protection Agency.
As a national civil rights figure representing Black Farmers, I
have met with President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, President
George W. Bush and President Jimmy Carter. I have led dozens of
training sessions and community meetings across the nation, Africa and
Haiti serving as a social justice advocate for women, Native American
and Hispanic farmers in their pursuit to fair access to USDA programs
and services. As a result, I am highly regarded in the farm community
as someone ``who cares'' and has access to critical information about
programs for Black and other minority, youth, veteran, women and
limited resource farmers with a proven ability to deliver high-quality
technical advice and solutions. The latest example of my personal
commitment and corporate resolve to ensure civil, economic,
environmental and social justice and fiscal responsibility for NBFA
members and other small-scale farmers is the NBFA call to action
``ReClaiming, ReGaining, and ReGenerating Our Family Farms''.
The NBFA has been providing sustainable agriculture workshops and
conferences for over 30 years due to the ongoing injustices faced by
Black and other minority farmers. The NBFA provides all educational
outreach training initiatives, direct technical assistance and
conferences free of charge to attendees and open invitation for all to
attend in accordance with the MOU between USDA, EPA, U.S. Forest
Service. SC Commission for Minority Affairs and the NBFA.
I am a fourth-generation farmer, maintaining about 1,300 acres in
Southside, Virginia, where I grow soybeans, wheat, corn and raise beef
cattle.
The long history of discrimination by the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) is not in dispute.
Scholars, commissions, the courts, and even the Department itself
have confirmed that USDA systematically denied loans, subsidies and
other benefits to Black farmers that were routinely provided to white
farmers.
In 1965, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found \1\ that
discrimination in farm programs had contributed to a decline in
Black ownership of farmland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1965_USCCR-Report.pdf.
In 1968, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found \2\ that
Black farmers faced discrimination when seeking farm loans and
other forms of assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1968_USCCR-Report.pdf.
In 1970, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found \3\
discrimination in the administration of USDA programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/cr12en2.pdf.
1982, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights documented \4\
discrimination complaints at USDA county offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1990_House-Report.pdf.
In 1995, the [General Accounting] Office found \5\ USDA
county committees had few people of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1995_Minorities-and-Women-on-Farm-
Committees.pdf.
In 1996, a study for USDA's Farm Services Agency found \6\
farmers were not getting an equitable share of farm payments
and loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1996_DJ-Miller-Report.pdf.
In 1997, USDA's Inspector General documented \7\ a ``climate
of disorder'' among USDA civil rights staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1997_IG-Report.pdf.
In 1997, the Civil Rights Action Team created by USDA
documented \8\ stories of discrimination against farmers of
color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1997-crat-report.pdf.
In 1998, the USDA's Commission on Small Farms cites \9\
discrimination as a cause of the decline of Black farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1998-NCSF-Report.pdf.
In 1999, a Federal court found \10\ USDA discriminated
against Black farmers by denying or delaying loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://acresofancestry.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/April-
1999-Court-Opinion-Approving-Consent-Decree-.pdf.
In 2001, the U.S. Commission on Civil rights found \11\
Black farmers waited four times longer than white farmers to
receive farm loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/2001_USCCR-Report.pdf.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported \12\
that USDA had still not resolved many discrimination
complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/2008_GAO-Report.pdf.
But discrimination is not something that I read about in a report
or a court transcript. I have attached to my testimony the reports by
the Commission on Civil Rights, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Government Accountability Office as well as written testimony I have
presented to Congress over the years as the NBFA President that
document this history of discrimination, differential treatment, and
breach of trust by USDA. They also detail the struggle the NBFA has
encountered at the USDA to end racial discrimination and achieve
justice for Black Farmers as the NBFA was a named plaintiff in In Re
Black Farmers Discrimination and has filed objections and sought legal
remedies to protect Black Farmers in America.
In 1983, I was introduced to the USDA Farmers Home Administration
(now known as Farm Service Agency) by an elderly Black farmer who was
fighting off foreclosure. Once I purchased the farm with a farm
ownership loan, the lien was recorded in the local county courthouse.
That was the being of my relationship or lack thereof that brings me
before you today to discuss the ``State of Black Farmers''. I
experienced racial discrimination personally when I sought farm
operating loans from the Department. I was called ``boy.'' I was spit
on. My loan applications on numerous occasions were torn up and thrown
in the trash while I watched. Upon investigation by the USDA Office of
Civil Rights, several applications were found unprocessed in my USDA
file. In my county office, Black farmers were only seen on Wednesday--
or what came to be known as ``Black Wednesday.'' When Black farmers
received USDA loans they were assigned ``supervised'' bank accounts
which required white loan officers to co-sign every transaction.
As a result of differential treatment and discrimination against
Black farmers like myself, the number of Black farmers has fallen
dramatically--from more than 900,000 in 1920 to less than 50,000 today.
Unfortunately, the effects of discrimination by the Department can
be felt decades after reaching historic settlement agreements. I
reached a settlement agreement with USDA in 1997 which provided
complete debt relief. In 2019, I was informed that USDA had breached
the settlement agreement and over $600,000 in USDA liens remained
against my farm according to a title search. I filed a complaint
against USDA for Breach of Agreement and Retaliation because the
amounts recorded in the liens were erroneous and the prepared
Certificates of Satisfaction to release the liens had been prepared but
never executed or filed as they remained unsigned by the local county
FSA official in my USDA file. It wasn't until I secured and paid for
the services of an attorney to file these Certificates that my farm was
no longer in jeopardy of [land loss] at the hands of the USDA. This
wasn't the 1st time USDA officials had failed to act upon my behalf and
I am here today because I want to openly address why the NBFA has
continued to call for accountability and transparency at the Department
in 2021. Too many Black Farmers continue to request our assistance to
address program complaints and civil rights violations.
Discrimination continues to be reflected and reinforced by current
USDA programs.
While Black farmers receive about $60 million in annual commodity
subsidies, white farmers annually receive about $10 billion in
commodity subsidies.
While an eligible Black farmer receives, on average, $7,755 in
commodity subsidies, an eligible white farmer receives, on average,
$17,206 in commodity subsidies.
Like commodity subsidies, ad hoc disaster payments also
overwhelmingly flow to white farmers.
Experts found that 99% of the Market Facilitation Payments made to
offset the effects of President Trump's trade war went to white
farmers. Experts also found that 97% of Coronavirus Food Assistance
Payments made to address the [COVID]-19 pandemic went to white farmers.
The disparity in the crop insurance program--which requires a
farmer-paid premium many Black farmers cannot afford--may be even
greater, but Congress will not lift the veil of secrecy that hides who
receives crop insurance subsidies.
As you know, arm income support payments are tied to production or
revenue. The largest 10% of subsidy recipients collect more than half
of all subsidies. Virtually all of these farmers are white.
The result of decades of discrimination is that Black farms are
smaller, and our revenues are smaller than those of our white
neighbors. Therefore, eligible Black farmers receive less support from
USDA and fall further and further behind. What's more, a
disproportionate share of Black farmers produce farm products that are
not even eligible for traditional subsidies.
Rather than right these historic wrongs, government programs have
largely perpetuated systemic racism.
In response to discrimination by the Department, I joined with
other farmers to sue USDA, which resulted in the Pigford and In Re:
Black Farmers Discrimination settlements. By acknowledging the long
history of discrimination, the Black Farmer settlements were an
important first step. But they failed to provide farmers the debt
relief Black farmers needed.
During the Trump Trade war, it was unacceptable that foreign owned
corporations benefited at an alarming rate while tax-paying American
farmers such as myself received min[u]scule amounts of the relief
designated with stated purpose to help American Farmers. Economic
fairness was at stake in that matter but failed to provide much needed
relief for the disruption to our farms.
On June 19, 2019, I testified before the U.S. Financial Services
Committee. I stated, ``Unless there is a set aside amount for support
of small-scale farmers in the proposed $16 Billion Bailout, we will be
treated as invisible and insignificant participants in the process.
Policy decisions regarding farmers will continue to disproportionately
reward foreign-owned corporations and exclude already disadvantaged
farmers in our category. Justice would be served in the current crisis
by a vote for bipartisan legislation from this Committee to set aside
$5 Billion to help address the needs of Black and other small-scale
farmers. Fair treatment is all we are asking. Just justice.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA10/20190619/109679/HHRG-
116-BA10-Wstate-BoydJ-20190619-U1.pdf (video testimony: https://
youtu.be/Ibm-zA4wQII)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By providing debt relief to Black farmers and other farmers of
color, the American Rescue Plan Act begins to fulfil the promises of
the Black Farmers lawsuits and, more importantly, gives new life to
Black farmers facing foreclosure. But there is still much more to be
done to right these historic wrongs and to ensure that Black farmers
remain part of the fabric of American agriculture.
To support Black farmers, we must reform our subsidy and crop
insurance programs to level the playing field between white farmers and
Black farmers. We must make these programs more transparent, so Black
farmers can see whether promised reforms are actually working. We must
expand access to land and credit so that Black farmers can expand our
operations. And we must improve outreach and technical assistance to
Black farmers who have been treated as second-class citizens by the
Department for too long.
Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this historic hearing.
Appendix
Editor's note: the documents listed were submitted by the witness
as an Appendix. They are listed here in the order that they were
submitted. Due to its size the Appendix is retained in Committee file,
and the individual documents are available online at the hyperlinks
noted. Note: items marked with ( ) denote that in addition to the
excerpt the full report is retained in Committee file.
1. USDA RBS Research, Report 194: Black Farmers in America, 1865-
2000 The Pursuit of Independent Farming and the Role of
Cooperatives (https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RR194.pdf) \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note: contained further on in the Appendix is an excerpt from
this report, p. 24 (Appendix Table 3--Farm operators in the U.S. by
race, 1900 to 1997).
2. USDA NASS, 1964 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 2, Part 8, Color,
Race, and Tenure of Farm Operator (http://lib-usda-
05.serverfarm.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1964/02/08/
1964-02-08.pdf), Table 4. Number of Negro and Other
Nonwhite Farm Operators, by Regions and States: 1900 to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1964, p. 761
3. USDA NASS, 1964 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 2, Part 8, Color,
Race, and Tenure of Farm Operator (http://lib-usda-
05.serverfarm.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1964/02/08/
1964-02-08.pdf), Table 3. Number of Farms by Color and by
Tenure of Operator, and Land in Farms by Tenure and
Operator, by Regions and States: 1880 to 1964, p. 756
4. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1965, Equal Opportunity in Farm
Programs: An Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies of
the United States Department of Agriculture. A Report of
the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 1965 (http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED068206.pdf)
5. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1965, Civil Rights Under Federal
Programs: An Analysis of Title VI of The Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015019789091)
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Note: this document is available at a variety of university
sites; however, in all extant instances they are using the ``Digitized
by Google'' copy.
6. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1970, Federal Civil Rights
Enforcement Effort: A Report of The United States
Commission on Civil Rights 1970 (https://
www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cr12en2.pdf), pp. I-III, 48-49
7. USDA, January 1981, A Time to Choose: Summary Report on the
Structure of Agriculture (https://archive.org/details/
timetochoosesumm00unit/page/n1/mode/2up)
8. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 1982, The Decline of
Black Farming in America (https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED222604.pdf)
9. USDA, Economic Research Service, July 1986, Rural Development
Research Report Number 59, Black Farmers and Their Farms
(https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1982_USDA-History.pdf)
10. House Rept. 101-984, The Minority Farmer: A Disappearing American
Resource; Has The Farmers Home Administration Been The
Primary Catalyst? (https://books.google.com/books/download/
Congressional_Serial_Set.pdf) \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Note: the submission in the Appendix document is from a
LexisNexis printout of the House report. The item retained in Committee
file is a pdf excerpted from the Congressional Serial Set 14029
digitized by Google.
11. USDA, February 1997, Civil Rights at the United States Department
of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team
(https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1997-crat-report.pdf), p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
12. U.S. DOJ, 1994, Vol. 18, Authority of USDA to Award Monetary
Relief for Discrimination \17\ (https://www.justice.gov/
olc/file/626886/download), pp. 52-73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Note: this is an excerpt from the U.S. Department of Justice
report entitled, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the United
States Department of Justice Consisting of Selected Memorandum Opinions
Advising the President of the United States, the Attorney General and
Other Executive Officers of the Federal Government in Relation to Their
Official Duties, Volume 18, 1994.
13. U.S. GAO, September 29, 1995, GAO/GGD-95-211, Equal Employment
Opportunity Women and Minority Representation at Interior,
Agriculture, Navy, and State (https://www.gao.gov/assets/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ggd-95-211.pdf)
14. U.S. GAO, March 1, 1995, GAO Decision, B-260588, RCED-95-113R,
Minorities and Women on Farm Committees (https://
www.gao.gov/assets/rced-95-113r.pdf)
15. USDA FSA, March 4, 1996, D.J. Miller Disparity Study Final
Report, Producer Participation and EEO Complaint Process
Study for the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Part I, Vol. I-II (https://
static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/1996_DJ-Miller-
Report.pdf)
16. USDA CRIT, September 1997, Implementation of the Civil Rights
Action Team Report at USDA: An Interim Progress Report
(https://permanent.fdlp.gov/lps15852/critprog.pdf)
17. U.S. GAO, March 19, 1997, GAO/T-RCED-97-112, Farm Programs:
Efforts to Achieve Equitable Treatment of Minority Farmers
(https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-rced-97-112.pdf)
18. USDA OIG, February 27, 1997, Report No. 50801-2-Hq(1), Report for
the Secretary on Civil Rights Issues--Phase I, Farm Loan
Programs--Civil Rights Complaint System Evaluation (https:/
/www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/oig.htm)
19. U.S. District Court for D.C., April 14, 1999, Civil Action No 97-
1978 (PLF), Timothy C. Pigford, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dan
Glickman, Secretary, The United States Department Of
Agriculture, Defendant. Civil Action No. 98-1693 (PLF),
Cecil Brewington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel R.
Glickman, Defendant, Notice of Class Certification and
Proposed Class Settlement (https://www.dm.usda.gov/
pigford.pdf)
20. USDA NCSF, January 1998, A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA
National Commission on Small Farms (https://archive.org/
download/timetoact
1545usda/timetoact1545usda.pdf)
21. U.S. District Court for D.C., April 14, 1999, Civil Action No 97-
1978 (PLF), Timothy C. Pigford, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dan
Glickman, Secretary, The United States Department of
Agriculture, Defendant. Civil Action No. 98-1693 (PLF),
Cecil Brewington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Daniel R.
Glickman, Defendant, Opinion (https://
media.dcd.uscourts.gov/pigfordmonitor/orders/
19990414op.pdf)
22. USDA NRCS, undated, Civil Rights at USDA: A Backgrounder on
Efforts by the Obama Administration (https://
www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/margoschlanger/Documents/
Publications/Offices_of_Goodness/USDA Civil Rights at USDA
A Backgrounder on Efforts by the Obama Administration.pdf)
23. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 2001, Racial and Ethnic
Tensions in American Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and
Discrimination. Volume VII: The Mississippi Delta Report
(https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457307.pdf)
24. USDA NASS, June 2004, 2002 Census of Agriculture, AC-02-A-51,
United States Summary and State Data, Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 51 (http://lib-usda-
05.serverfarm.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/2002/01/51/
2002-01-51.pdf), pp. 48-49
25. USDA NASS, December 2009, 2007 Census of Agriculture, AC-07-A-51,
United States Summary and State Data, Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 51 (https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/AgCensus/2007/Full_Re
port/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf), pp. 58-61
26. U.S. GPO, 110-246, Statute Compilation, December 20, 2018, 110-
246--Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.xml
(https://www.agriculture.senate.
gov/imo/media/doc/110-246_Food, Conservation, And Energy
Act Of 2008.pdf), pp. 92-95 \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Note: the full compilation is retained in Committee file.
Further note: the compilation has been updated as of January 8, 2019
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10237/pdf/COMPS-10237.pdf).
27. U.S. GAO, October 22, 2008, GAO-09-62, U.S. Department of
Agriculture: Recommendations and Options to Address
Management Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-62.pdf)
28. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing,
Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and
Procurement, May 14, 2008 Management of Civil Rights at the
USDA (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-
110hhrg48172/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg48172.pdf), Serial No. 110-137
29. USDA OASCR, November 5, 2010, Informational Memorandum for Deputy
Chief of Staff to the Secretary, Proposed Resolution to
Adjust the Recorded Yields of Black Farmers in Clarendon
County, South Carolina (https://static.ewg.org/reports/
2021/BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/2010_Black-Farmers-
Yield-Clarendon-SC.pdf)
30. U.S. DOJ, February 18, 2010, Department of Justice and USDA
Announce Historic Settlement in Lawsuit by Black Farmers
Claiming Discrimination by USDA (https://www.justice.gov/
opa/pr/department-justice-and-usda-announce-historic-
settlement-lawsuit-black-farmers-claiming)
31. 111th Congress, H.R. 2847, An Act making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2010, and for other purposes. (https://www.congress.gov/
111/bills/hr2847/BILLS-111hr2847eah.pdf), pp. 90-97 \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Note: the bill was signed into law (Public Law 111-147
(https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ147/PLAW-111publ147.pdf)) March
18, 2010.
32. USDA Office of the Administrative Law Judges, Office of Hearings
and Appeals, February 13, 1984, SOL Docket No. 09-0177
Charles McDonald, Complainant v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary,
United States Department Of Agriculture, Decision and Order
(https://oalj.oha.usda.gov/sites/default/files/100708SOL09-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0177DO.pdf)
33. USDA NASS, May 8, 2019, 2012 Census of Agriculture, Race,
Ethnicity and Gender Profiles, United States (https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/
Online_Resources/Race,_Ethnicity_and_Gender_Profiles/
cpd99000.pdf)
34. USDA NASS, September 2014, ACH12-10, 2012 Census of Agriculture
Highlights, Black Farmers: Up 12 percent since 2007; most
live in southern states (https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/Highlights/2014/Highlights_
Black_Farmers.pdf)
35. U.S. District Court for D.C., April 1, 2012, Civil Action No 97-
1978-PLF, Document 1812, Monitor's Final Report on Good
Faith Implementation of the Consent Decree and
Recommendation for Status Conference (https://
media.dcd.uscourts.gov/pigfordmonitor/reports/
Rpt20120331_final.pdf) \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Note: there is an Appendix (https://media.dcd.uscourts.gov/
pigfordmonitor/reports/Rpt20120331_final-app.pdf) to the report. This
document was not included in the submission; therefore, it is also
retained in Committee file.
36. USDA NASS, September 2, 2020, 2017 Census of Agriculture, Race,
Ethnicity and Gender Profiles, United States (https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/
Online_Resources/Race,_Ethnicity_and_Gender_Profiles/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cpd99000.pdf)
37. USDA NASS, April 2019, 2017 Census of Agriculture, AC-17-A-51,
United States Summary and State Data, Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 51 (https://www.nass.usda.gov/
Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/
Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf), pp. 72-75
38. U.S. GAO, July 11, 2019, GAO-19-539, Agricultural Lending:
Information on Credit and Outreach to Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Is Limited (https://
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-539.pdf)
39. Warren Democrats, undated, Addressing Discrimination and Ensuring
Equity for Farmers of Color (https://elizabethwarren.com/
plans/equity-farmers-of-color)
40. Onika Abraham, Director, Farm School NYC, New York, et al.,
letter dated August 31, 2019, Re: Justice for Black Farmers
(https://static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/2019_WARREN-LETTER.pdf)
41. 116th Congress, S. 4929, Justice for Black Farmers Act of 2020
(https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4929/BILLS-
116s4929is.pdf)
42. U.S. GAO, February 24, 2021, GAO-21-399T, Financial Services:
Fair Lending, Access, and Retirement Security (https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-399t)
43. 117th Congress, H.R. 1319, Union Calendar No. 1, American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 (https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/
hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319rh.
pdf) \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Note: the bill was signed into law (Public Law 117-2) March
11, 2021; however, as of this date (April 6, 2021) the Public Law has
not been published the enrolled version (https://www.congress.gov/117/
bills/hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319enr.pdf) is the latest available copy.
44. Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act (https://
static.ewg.org/reports/2021/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackFarmerDiscriminationTimeline/2021_Warnock.pdf)
Submitted as Separate Items (Not in Appendix), the documents that
are available online will not be republished herein, and are available
at the hyperlinks noted.
1. USDA, Apr. 2020, Commitment to Progress: Civil Rights at the
United States Department of Agriculture (https://
archive.org/details/CAT11079176)
2. Case: 20-16758, February 19, 2021, National Association of Wheat
Growers, et al., Plaintiffs--Appellees, v. Xavier Becerra,
in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State
of California, Defendant--Appellant, and Lauren Zeise, in
Her Official Capacity as Director of the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Defendant. Amicus
Curiae Brief of the National Black Farmers Association in
Support of Appellant and Reversal (https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/AG/AG00/20210325/111400/HHRG-117-AG00-Wstate-
BoydJ-20210325-SD013.pdf)
Submission No. 3
January 28, 1997
Informational Memorandum to the Secretary
Subject: Discrimination Complaints filed by Minority Farmers in the
State of Virginia
To: Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture
From: Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, USDA Rural Development
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview and
general assessment of the activities and process which lead to
preliminary investigations of alleged discriminatory practices at the
local level of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This
memorandum is intended to serve as a confirmation that discriminatory
practices appear to have imposed themselves upon our external customers
(in particular, minority farmers) in Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Lunenburg
and other counties in southside and southeastern Virginia. It is my
opinion that these discriminatory practices are the result of three
main components which are noted as follows: super intense regulatory
barriers which are unfriendly to the small producers, poor quality
customer service (with a healthy portion of weak employee performance),
and a lack of sensitivity for the needs and limited resources of small
producers (to include an apparent unwillingness to communicate with
some producers in a manner that they could understand the regulatory
requirements imposed by the agency, meaning the Farmers Home
Administration, in the customer's attempt to obtain a loan or to
service an existing loan) by some employees within USDA. This report is
my effort to relay to you a chronology of events that took place in
response to charges that were brought to my attention by minority
farmers.
As a former career, and currently a political appointee, civil
servant, I have worked for the Department of Agriculture for more than
20 years. During that time, I have had the opportunity to observe and
react to issues that could be construed as poor customer service. It is
my belief that the support and enforcement of the civil rights and EEO
law within USDA have been monumental challenges for both senior and
mid-level management. As a State Director, it is my responsibility to
make sure that these laws, as mandated by Congress and the Clinton
Administration, are successfully administered.
Recently, there has been a flurry of complaints, allegations,
innuendoes and misstatements concerning discrimination complaints and
activities within the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) in Virginia.
The following chronological history of events that took place should
clarify most, if not all, of these allegations.
Chronological History
John W. Boyd, Jr.
February 19, 1992--A discrimination complaint was received from Mr.
Boyd by the Farmer Programs Chief, Herman Lundy, and the State Civil
Rights Manager, Ava Marshall.
February 24, 1992--A copy of the discrimination complaint was sent
to the National Office Equal Opportunity Division in Washington, D.C.
April 2, 1992--The State Director notified the County Supervisor of
problems found in a review of Mr. Boyd's case by the Farm Division in
the State Office which indicated that application and loan processing
had been handled inappropriately. An explanation was requested.
April 21, 1992--The County Supervisor wrote a response to the State
Director's request indicating he believed he had handled Mr. Boyd's
case in all fairness and in accordance with FmHA procedures.
June 22, 1992--The State Director notified the County Supervisor of
the importance of processing requests within the timeframes stated in
FmHA procedures.
July 17, 1992--A request for preliminary inquiry was received by
the State Office from the National Office Equal Opportunity Staff for
investigation.
Due to illness, Ava Marshall was unable to act on the preliminary
inquiry for approximately 45 days. She communicated with the National
Office on several occasions to inform them of her efforts to respond to
their request.
April 9, 1993--Ava Marshall became seriously ill and was diagnosed
with multiple sclerosis.
On or about May 9, 1993--A Civil Rights team from Mississippi came
to the Virginia State FmHA office to assist in completing the
preliminary inquiry assignment which was being conducted by Ava
Marshall.
May 12, 1993--The State Director wrote to the County Supervisor
acknowledging that the restructuring of Mr. Boyd's farm loans were not
completed. The County Supervisor did not follow instructions at the
time he ran the Debt Adjustment Loan Restructuring System (DALR$)
program. He forgot to include the $5,000.00 Operating Loan. The County
Supervisor was directed to take appropriate corrective actions within
thirty (30) days.
May 14, 1993--A loan review made by Russell L. Marsh, Farmer
Programs Chief, indicated this case had not been properly handled by
James Garnett, the Chase City County Supervisor. Mr. Boyd had no chance
of meeting his obligations due to the failure to properly service his
loan accounts by the County Supervisor. His FmHA accounts had been
referred to a credit bureau by the County Supervisor and is currently
showing up as delinquent when, in fact, they should be current. Mr.
Boyd also stated that a payment of $3,100.00 made in late 1992 was
never credited to his account. The County Supervisor was given thirty
(30) days to correct these actions.
June 1, 1993--The findings of the team from Mississippi were sent
to the National Office Equal Opportunity Staff.
On or about December 12, 1993--Doug McDowell, Equal Opportunity
Specialist, from the National Office called Ava Marshall, State Civil
Rights Manager, and informed her the Mississippi report was
unsatisfactory and more information was needed on this case.
January 4, 1994--A new request for additional information was sent
to Ava Marshall to research, gather information, and prepare a report
which required a considerable amount of time.
June 16, 1994--Ava Marshall, State Civil Rights Manager, compiled
and sent new information with recommendations and conclusions to
Washington, D.C.
June 24, 1994--The State Civil Rights Manager met with Russell Lee
Marsh, Farmer Programs Chief, to discuss payments Mr. Boyd indicated
were made and not credited to his account. The wrong amount was
credited to Mr. Boyd's account and too much was given to another
borrower. Mr. Marsh instructed the County Office to reverse the payment
from the other borrower's account and apply the correct amount to Mr.
Boyd's account. They are to notify Mr. Marsh when this is completed.
Once completed, everything in the original May 12, 1993, memorandum
must still be done. He indicated this needed to be done right away so
the accounts could be properly set up, and the loan be serviced in
accordance with FmHA Instructions.
July 14, 1994--The State Director notified Sharron Longino,
Associate Administrator, FmHA, that after Mr. Boyd having been in
business for ten (10) years, the FmHA Chase City County Supervisor's
actions had put him further behind in his farming operations and debt
servicing than he was when he started. Mr. Boyd had no farm income to
pay his loans and relied totally on non-farm income for his family
living expenses. FmHA was holding a mortgage on Mr. Boyd's farm with a
new poultry house which was not even being utilized. The County
Supervisor and District Director provided no supervisory support to Mr.
Boyd which increased his chances for failure.
August 15, 1994--The National Office Farmer Programs Division
reviewed Mr. Boyd's case and provided specific recommendations to the
Equal Opportunity Staff for reconciling the problems with this case.
September 12, 1994--The National Office responded with corrective
servicing actions to resolve this case.
October 11, 1994--Mr. Boyd and his attorney met with the State
Director, the Farmer Programs Chief, and six (6) other members of the
FmHA staff to discuss items outlined in the letter from the National
Office.
October 24, 1994--The State Director wrote to Mr. Boyd notifying
him of the corrective actions that were to be taken by the Chase City
County Office concerning his farm accounts.
October 24, 1994--The State Director wrote to Mr. Boyd notifying
him of actions taken on his FmHA rural housing application.
November 1, 1994--The State Director responded to the National
Office regarding the outcome of the letter dated September 12, 1994.
This letter indicated that all corrective actions suggested by the
National Office were not completed. Mr. Boyd was not satisfied with the
results of the meeting or the actions taken by the State Office staff,
and proceeded to inform the National Office that he wanted to continue
with his complaint as filed.
January 10, 1995--The new Chase City County Supervisor, Anne J.
Rickman, provided the State Director with an update on the status of
Mr. Boyd's loan restructuring and information needed on an operating
loan.
October 1, 1995--Farm Service Agency assumed responsibility for
agricultural credit lending activities.
April 5, 1996--J. Calvin Parrish, Acting State Executive Director,
Farm Service Agency, sent Mr. Boyd a copy of his 1992 original
discrimination complaint.
October 11, 1996--The final decision of USDA, signed by Wardell C.
Townsend, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Administration and Designated
Director of Equal Opportunity Officer, on John Boyd's February 18, 1992
complaint alleging discrimination based on race, found that
discrimination on the basis of race had occurred and ordered corrective
actions be offered.
November 26, 1996--Otis Dailey, District Director, Farmville,
Virginia, reported that according to the final decision from Wardell C.
Townsend, Jr., the Assistant Secretary for Administration and
Designated Director of Equal Opportunity Officer dated October 11,
1996, the complainant met with him in April 1988 to express concerns
about James Garnett failing to process loan applications and the
acceleration of John Boyd's account. Mr. Dailey said that he does not
deny meeting with Mr. Boyd, but he does not remember it. Mr. Dailey
reported he does not recall Mr. Boyd contacting or attempting to
contact him until the summer of 1996 concerning a 502 Rural Housing
application he filed in the Chase City Office and assigned to the
District Office for processing. Prior to the appeal date set up by the
Appeals Officer, Mr. Boyd called and requested information from his
file for the meeting. Mr. Dailey met Mr. Boyd in Chase City and
assisted him with what he needed for the appeal. The day Mr. Boyd met
with Mr. Dailey, Mr. Boyd asked that he follow him out of the office
into the hall. Mr. Boyd made statements about Mr. Garnett's handling of
his farm loans, and felt it was because of his race. Again, Mr. Boyd
said that he met with Mr. Dailey years ago about the charges made
against Mr. Garnett. Mr. Dailey stated that there were no specific
incidents that could be considered discriminatory.
Mr. Dailey was notified by memorandum from the State Director that
Mr. Boyd had filed a Civil Rights complaint alleging discrimination. In
June 1993, Anne Rickman, District Farm Specialist, was assigned to the
District Office. All responsibilities for farm loans were designated to
Anne Rickman. The Farm Program was handled by the State Office through
the District Farm Specialist. Mr. Dailey reported that, at that time,
he was distanced from farm activities in the District Office and the
John Boyd case. In a discussion with the District Farm Specialist, Anne
Rickman, later to be the new Chase City County Supervisor, it was
reported the complainant's requests were being taken care of to resolve
the concerns. Mr. Dailey stated he had had no contacts with Mr. Boyd
since being informed that his complaint had been turned over to the
State Civil Rights Manager in 1992. Mr. Dailey states specifically, as
District Director, he was not involved ``in the loop.'' Mr. Dailey
stated that in his position, it was like one hand did not know what the
other was doing. Mr. Dailey stated that the District Farm Specialist
representing him was actively and aggressively working towards
``fixing'' Mr. Boyd's loan problems, thereby keeping him on his farm
and operational. Mr. Dailey stated that in discussions with the
District Farm Specialist and regular contacts with the County Office,
it was reported Mr. Boyd's problems were being handled. Mr. Dailey met
with Mr. Boyd in the summer of 1996 in the Chase City Office. Mr.
Dailey said it is to be noted that he was questioned about this case,
officially, approximately February 1994. This was after the County
Supervisor had been forced to accept a transfer or separate from the
agency, and the performance appraisal for the County Supervisor had
been completed. Mr. Dailey stated that his comments were taken out of
``context'' during the February 1994 meeting.
Chronological History
Willie L. Crute, Jr.
January 22, 1994--Discrimination complaint was filed by Mr. Willie
Crute based on race against James Garnett, County Supervisor, Chase
City, Virginia.
February 17, 1994--A copy of the discrimination complaint was sent
to the National Office Equal Opportunity Division by the State
Director.
March 18, 1994--Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was
submitted to Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, by Mr. Crute's attorney,
requesting documents related to loan applications filed by Mr. Willie
L. Crute, Jr.
April 20, 1994--Freedom of Information Act request was denied in
part and appeal rights were given by Randall M. Welch, FOIA Officer.
May 23, 1994--Request for preliminary inquiry into this complaint
was requested by Carlton L. Lewis, Chief, Program Compliance Branch,
Equal Opportunity Staff, FmHA, National Office.
June 2, 1994--Freedom of Information Act appeal requested by Mr.
Crute's attorney on the initial request for information.
July 1, 1994--Freedom of Information Act request was made by Willie
L. Crute, Jr. for several documents in his file.
July 18, 1994--Two (2) of the items in Mr. Crute's request for
information were sent; approval from the National Office on the other
three (3) items was requested.
July 19, 1994--The results of the preliminary inquiry were sent to
the National Office Equal Opportunity Staff for review.
August 9, 1994--The results of the preliminary inquiry were sent
back for recommendations and summary of the events. Ava Marshall, State
Civil Rights Manager, had made recommendations and conclusions,
previously; however, when reviewed by her supervisor, Mr. Reginald
Rountree, she was instructed to remove them.
August 16, 1994--The results of the preliminary inquiry were
resubmitted with recommendations and conclusions to the National Office
Equal Opportunity Staff as requested.
December 21, 1994--Request was received from Philip Southers,
Attorney, OGC, to close their files on Willie L. Crute, Jr.
January 9, 1995--Response from Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, in
reference to the memorandum dated December 21, 1994. Mr. Jones advised
Mr. Southers to keep the files open since Mr. Crute had filed a law
suit against the agency.
October 1, 1995--Farm Service Agency assumed responsibility for the
agricultural credit lending activities.
January 24, 1996--Donald L. Davis, State Executive Director, Farm
Service Agency, wrote to Mr. Crute notifying him they were not aware of
any offer to settle his complaint by the National Office, and offered
him an opportunity to file a Tort Claim if he wanted to do so. Mr. Lee
Marsh, AgCredit Director, sent Mr. Crute a Tort Claim form to complete.
July 1, 1996--The final decision of USDA, signed by Wardell C.
Townsend, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Administration and Designated
Director of Equal Opportunity Officer, on Willie L. Crute, Jr.'s
January 22, 1994 complaint alleging discrimination based on race, found
that discrimination on the basis of race had occurred.
November 26, 1996--Otis Daily, District Director, reported that
through his regular contacts with the Chase City Office and the
District Farm Specialist, he learned Mr. Crute had filed a
discrimination complaint being handled by the State Civil Rights
Manager. He stated that to his knowledge, no contacts were ever made by
him with Mr. Crute.
Chronological History
Eric R. Rice
August 24, 1993--Mr. Eric R. Rice filed a discrimination complaint
based on race against Mr. Charles M. Featherston, County Supervisor,
Brunswick County FmHA Office.
October 19, 1993--Instructions for completing a preliminary inquiry
on Eric R. Rice was sent to the State Director.
April 15, 1994--Jacqui Micheli, Equal Opportunity Specialist,
National Office, Equal Opportunity Staff, mailed Ava Marshall a copy of
the preliminary inquiry report of Eric R. Rice that was done by Pat
Baker, state Civil Rights Coordinator, Delaware. Ms. Baker concluded
from her investigation, the major problem in the Brunswick County
Office was the attitude of the County Supervisor. She stated that, for
many years, the Black farmers felt Mr. Featherstun had total control of
the FmHA office and their applications/benefits. She reported the
processing cards did not show a large discrepancy in processing time;
however, a review of the files did show the servicing attitude which
may have deterred minorities from applying for all benefits/options,
because they felt it would do them no good. Ms. Baker admitted in her
conclusions that since she was from another state, she did not have
enough time to fully complete the review of all items reported by the
Black farmers serviced by this County Office to determine if
differences were made between Black and white farmers in areas of loan
making.
January 3, 1995--Records show that Carrie Schmidt, Acting State
Civil Rights Coordinator, in the absence of Ava Marshall, State Civil
Rights Manager, requested in a letter signed by Lloyd A. Jones, State
Director, to the Maryland/Delaware State Director for his State Civil
Rights Coordinator to assist Virginia on this preliminary inquiry.
These records are very hard to understand because the letter is dated
January 3, 1995, and requesting assistance from the State Civil Rights
Coordinator in Delaware from November 15, 1993, through November 19,
1993. Apparently there was a typographical error in the dates noted.
February 2, 1995--A letter sent from Vicky E. Hunt, Acting Chief,
Program Complaints Adjudication Division, to Cheryl Prejean Greaux,
Director, Equal Opportunity Staff, transmitting a copy of the
Department's final decision on the discrimination complaint of Mr. Eric
R. Rice. Ms. Hunt told Ms. Greaux that she had forwarded her request to
conduct an onsite investigation into the discrimination complaints of
Mr. Rice and other minority farmers in Lawrenceville, Virginia, to the
Evaluation and Investigation Division for appropriate action. Mr.
Rice's complaint from a civil rights standpoint was closed at this
time.
February 10, 1995--A letter from the Department went to Mr. Rice
stating his complaint was not determined to be discrimination based on
race.
April 3, 1995--A letter from Carlton L. Lewis, Branch Chief,
Program Compliance Staff, Civil Rights Division, was sent to Lloyd A.
Jones, State Director, indicating the Department had responded to Mr.
Rice's complaint with a decision that discrimination had not occurred
and the file should be closed.
August 3, 1995--A letter from Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture,
was sent to Eric R. Rice asking for additional information to be
provided to continue investigation of his discrimination complaint. He
was given fifteen (15) days to respond to this letter. He was told if
FmHA did not receive the information on his complaint, the case would
be closed. Secretary Espy indicated his files would be returned to the
Virginia FmHA State Director to consider Mr. Rice's application for
debt settlement.
(Note: This file was given to us by Farm Service Agency to
prepare this report and is not complete. We do not have a copy
of the preliminary inquiry, and most of the dates in the
information we have are conflicting throughout the file.)
Chronological History
Sherman D. Witcher
January 25, 1994--Mr. Witcher filed a discrimination complaint
based on age and race.
February 17, 1994--Mr. Witcher's discrimination complaint was sent
to the Equal Opportunity Division in the National Office requesting a
guide for conducting a preliminary inquiry.
March 23, 1994--A letter was sent by Lloyd A. Jones, State
Director, resubmitting copies of the discrimination complaints from
Willie Crute and Sherman Witcher to the National Office Equal
Opportunity Division requesting guides for preliminary inquiry, as it
had been over a month since they were first submitted.
(Note: Recently in November 1996, when we requested the files
on this case from Farm Service Agency, we were told they had
nothing on Sherman Witcher; however, we found the above
information attached to other documents in the files of Willie
L. Crute, also a complainant. We have no idea of whether a
preliminary inquiry or decision was made in this case, or what
the outcome has been since.)
Chronological History
William S. Warren
January 10, 1992--Mr. William S. Warren filed a discrimination
complaint based on race against Ron Norton, County Supervisor,
Southampton FmHA County Office.
February 24, 1992--Lloyd A. Jones. State Director, sent a copy of
the discrimination complaint to the Equal Opportunity Staff.
March 30, 1992--Equal Opportunity Staff sent Lloyd A. Jones a guide
on conducting preliminary inquiry into this complaint.
September 3, 1992--Ava Marshall began working on the preliminary
inquiries as requested by the National Office. Shortly after beginning
work on this preliminary inquiry, Ava Marshall became ill and was out
from work most of early 1993 after being diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis.
July 21, 1993--Mr. Jones. realizing Ms. Marshall was not going to
return anytime soon, requested assistance from the West Virginia State
Civil Rights Coordinator to conduct these preliminary inquiries.
August 23, 1993--Leland Kesner, State Civil Rights Coordinator from
West Virginia, met with Mr. Warren at his home.
November 19, 1993--Mr. Kesner submitted the results to the Equal
Opportunity Staff.
May 13, 1994--A letter was sent from Michael Dunn, Administrator to
Robert Franko recommending that the case be closed from a civil rights
standpoint without further reporting.
March 2, 1995--Congressman Norman Sisisky received a response to
Mr. Warren's inquiry concerning a decision on his discrimination
complaint indicating that Mr. Warren's complaint was being reviewed by
Office of Civil Rights Evaluation (OCRE) and a decision would be made
as quickly as possible. Once a decision was made, Mr. Warren would be
notified directly.
March 2, 1995--Lou Anne Kling, Acting Deputy Administrator, Farm
Credit Programs, again, verified Mr. Warren's claim was still being
reviewed by OCRE. She indicated a decision will be made in the near
future.
(Note: It appears, from the records that we received from
Farm Service Agency, there has been no further action on
discrimination to date.)
Chronological History
Carol Clay
A White Female Borrower
September 8, 1994--A memorandum from Carlton Lewis, Branch Chief,
Program Compliance Staff, Civil Rights Division, to Lloyd A. Jones,
State Director, requesting the State Civil Rights Manager attempt to
conciliate Ms. Clay's complaint or conduct a preliminary inquiry into
the subject's complaint, and provide the National Office, Equal
Opportunity Staff with a copy of the proposed conciliation or the
preliminary report.
May 30, 1995--A memorandum from Cheryl Prejean Greaux to Willie
Cook, an employee on the CFSA Staff, with the original RECD casefile
enclosed. On June 2, 1994, the RECD Equal Opportunity Division
requested the State Director to have his Acting State Civil Rights
Coordinator attempt conciliation, and if conciliation was not
necessary, conduct a preliminary inquiry. A copy of this memorandum re-
notified the Virginia State Director the file was transferred to CFSA.
She pointed out that no further action had been taken by the Equal
Opportunity staff at this time.
August 2, 1995--Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, sent a report to
the National Equal Opportunity Staff on the preliminary inquiry
alleging discrimination by Carol Clay, submitted by Leland Kesner,
State Civil Rights Coordinator, West Virginia.
(Note: No further information is available on the outcome of
this complaint since the file was transferred to FSA. There is
no information in the files giving us the outcome of this
complaint after being sent to the National Office.)
Chronological History
Linwood Brown
July 21, 1994--Mr. Linwood Brown filed a discrimination complaint
against Rose Finch, Acting FmHA County Supervisor in Lawrenceville
County Office.
July 26, 1994--A copy of Mr. Brown's complaint was sent to the
Equal Opportunity Division in Washington, D.C. It was pointed out, at
that time, that this was the second complaint Mr. Brown had filed
against this office and no actions by the Brunswick County Office have
been taken in previous complaints.
(Note: No further in formation is available on this case
since it was submitted to the National Office Equal Opportunity
Staff on July 26, 1994.)
Chronological History
John and Betty Townsend
White Farm Borrowers
This case was closed by the Department on March 13, 1995, in a
letter signed by Jetie B. Wilds, Jr., Deputy Director of Evaluation and
Adjudication on the basis that no discrimination occurred based on
race.
Chronological History
Minority Farmers of Brunswick Country (Lawrenceville, Virginia)
Once I received a copy of the report from the Delaware State Civil
Rights Coordinator, I realized this problem was much more serious than
I anticipated. I discussed my concerns on numerous occasions after a
complete review of complaints my office had received from Brunswick,
Mecklenburg, Lunenburg, Sussex, and Nottoway Counties in Virginia. I
discussed the concerns that I had regarding these issues with the
appropriate National Office officials. I finally submitted a request in
writing on August 2, 1994, for a full and complete investigation
coordinated by the National Office, FmHA, on program delivery, in this
entire area where most of the complaints had originated.
It was my opinion, as State Director, that a more experienced team
in the area of civil rights should have been allowed to look into the
complaints made by Brunswick County farmers alleging discrimination.
The seventeen (17) farmers who were affected by this are:
John Wyatt Julia Seward Robert Seward
Beatrice Rice Walter Rice, Jr. Charles Bland
James Maclin Mary Maclin Laura Rice
Irene Hayes Eric Rice Larry Tucker
James Walker William Royster Leon Wall, Sr.
Linwood Brown Alvin Rice
October 26, 1993--Carrie Schmidt, Acting State Civil Rights
Coordinator, prepared a memorandum for the State Director's signature
indicating the cases evidenced by the December 31, 1992, memorandum had
been resolved. Mrs. Schmidt was very new to the civil rights program
and perhaps did not understand the complexity of these cases.
Specifically, they involved both violations by the County Supervisor in
program areas and civil rights areas. This memorandum was incorrectly
prepared because the action taken on these cases was program related
only. The files on the discrimination complaints should remain open and
the National investigation conducted as recommended.
August 2, 1994--A memorandum was developed and signed by Lloyd A.
Jones, State Director for FmHA, Virginia, requesting a full and
complete investigation of the discrimination complaints filed by the
minority farmers in Brunswick County.
August 29, 1994--A letter was written by Walter Dent, Acting
Director Equal Opportunity Staff, to Robert Franko requesting
assistance on the matter of discrimination on minority farmers and
employees in the Brunswick County area.
September 13, 1994--Robert Franko, Associate Director of Compliance
and Enforcement, responded to Walter Dent on his request to conduct an
onsite investigation on the minority farmers in Lawrenceville,
Virginia, by stating a request had been sent to the Evaluation and
Investigation Division (EID) for review and appropriate action. He
advised Mr. Dent this staff would evaluate all information pertaining
to the subject complaint, and advised the Enforcement Division as to
whether [an] investigation would be scheduled.
July 20, 1996--Thomas Beaumont, Chief, Program Complaints
Adjudication, wrote to Willie D. Cook, Director, Equal Opportunity,
FSA, requesting additional information regarding minority farmers and
employees in the Lawrenceville, Virginia, FmHA office. Mr. Beaumont
advised Mr. Cook FmHA had notified his office that it had conducted an
investigation at the request of several minority farmers and employees
in the Lawrenceville office, found several civil rights violations, and
recommended his office conduct an on site investigation. As of July 20,
1996, no on[s]ite investigation was conducted. He also pointed out that
the memorandum prepared by Mrs. Schmidt was insufficient to close the
cases from a civil rights point. He requested that Mr. Cook advise all
the farmers who made written complaints to advise whether they were
satisfied with the actions taken. Mr. Beaumont indicated, upon receipt
on this information, his office will process these cases.
August 13, 1996--Willie Cook, Director, Equal Opportunity, Farm
Service Agency, wrote to Donald Davis, State Executive Director,
Virginia State FSA Office, asking his staff to contact the following
farmers on their original discrimination complaints:
Linwood Brown Tommie Lowe John Wyatt
Richard Bains James Walker
David and Dorothy Craig Robert Steward
Chronological History
Other Farmers Who Filed Discrimination Complaints With FmHA Whose Civil
Rights Files Could Not Be Found By FSA Since the Reorganization
Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, Rural Development, Virginia, was
unable to obtain civil rights files from Farm Service Agency on the
following borrowers to prepare the chronological history requested.
(See attached list which was the response from FSA).
Alexander and Helen T. Jerome Brown John Wyatt
Warren
Mary Hayes (Daughter of James and Sally Walker John Lipscomb
James Hayes) Larry Tucker Thurman Douglas
Witcher
Calvin Brown Richard Pearson John and Betty
Townsend
William Royster
Executive Summary and Opinion
I take this opportunity to express my concern regarding the plight
of the small and family farm agriculture producers in America and, more
specifically, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As previously stated, I
have had the opportunity to serve as State Director of the Farmers Home
Administration and Rural Development for approximately 7 years. During
that time, I received numerous complaints as noted above that involved
alleged civil rights violations by employees within USDA and, more
specifically, the Farmers Home Administration. After thoroughly
investigating the cases and obtaining information surrounding the
allegations, I was convinced that the complaints of civil rights
violations did, in fact, have merit and warranted a more intense
investigation by the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement or the
appropriate investigative agency.
In my effort to find the truth to the issues brought to my
attention, I met with several farmers, Black and white, during the
tenure period of March 10, 1990, through September 30, 1995. The result
of my discussions with these farmers consistently and persistently
reaffirmed that there was, in fact, extremely poor customer service
being rendered in the counties of Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Lunenburg,
Nottoway, and Southampton. The names of James Garnett (Mecklenburg),
Charles Featherstun (Brunswick), Waverly Brown (Lunenburg and Nottoway)
and Ron Norton (Southampton), Berry Wright (District Director,
Franklin, VA) and Otis Dailey (District Director, Farmville, Virginia)
all former employees of the Farmers Home Administration were intimately
connected and in fact were viewed by most, if not all, of the
complainants as the problem. Often, I would hear comments to the effect
that these USDA employees did have any concern or compassion for their
plight or sensitivity to their needs. These comments were made by the
complainants noted above as well as others that attempted or were
participating in the USDA programs. The line authority for supervision
of these was as follows:
Lloyd A. Jones, State Director Ron Norton, County Supervisor
Berry Wright, District Director Charles Featherstun, County
Supervisor
Note: Mr. Wright had first line supervisory responsibility
over Mr. Norton and Mr. Featherstun.
Lloyd A. Jones, State Director James Garnett, County Supervisor
Otis Dailey, District Director Waverly Brown, County Supervisor
Note: Mr. Otis Dailey had first line supervisory
responsibility over Mr. Garnett and Mr. Brown.
Please note that Mr. Ron Norton is the only local
and/or district employee that is still employed with
USDA. Mr. Norton presently works for the Farm Service
Agency.
It is my opinion that the poor customer service that I made
reference to above given by these employees was the disguise used to
enforce the entrenched subtle discrimination practices carried out by
them and possibly some of their subordinate employees in administering
USDA programs. I am convinced that discriminatory practices become such
a way of life with some people that it is difficult, if not impossible,
for them to separate right from wrong and cultural acceptance from
blatant double and triple standards for people that are different
because of some physical feature that has nothing to do with the
character of the person or their ability to manage a farming operation.
When I met with these farmers it was evident that they were sincere,
determined, offended, disappointed, honest and, yet, hopeful for
relief.
Because of the cumbersome process that currently exists in the
administrative process of civil rights complaints[,] it became
increasingly clear to me that it was up to me to take administrative
action in resolving the personnel issues in question with regard to
performance of their duties and thereby finding a way to utilize the
skills of these employees in other areas that would maximize there
potential with regard to good customer service. Therefore, some
employees were given the option of accepting reassignment offers or
being released from duty.
It is also clear to me that the need for a strong civil rights
enforcement process is imperative to taking corrective action in
eradicating discriminatory practices in Virginia and throughout this
country. Although I believe [the] vast majority of the USDA workforce
is in fact dedicated to top quality customer service to all, it is also
my belief and confirmation that there are employees that do not have
the understanding and sensitivity that it takes to be a public servant.
I also believe that there are employees who knowingly discriminate
against people who are different from them regardless of the basis of
that difference whether it is based on physical characteristics or
economic conditions. In my effort to carry out an effective outreach
program by working with and through the 1890 Land-Grant Institution in
Virginia, which is Virginia State University, it was still difficult to
gain the full commitment needed from some of the local USDA personnel
in providing the technical assistance in developing and carrying out a
financial and/or business plan that supported the most effective and
efficient use of a customer's resources, particularly for the small
producers. Virginia State University and Farmers Home Administration
worked hand in hand by seeking and obtaining grants to provide the
financial resources for staff personnel that would forge strong
partnerships between USDA, VSU and the end-user of the services that we
provide. Some USDA employees did display the supportive and positive
attitude that was necessary to assist our customers in the most
effective and efficient way possible. In carrying out this initiative
of reaching the small producer with special focus in southside
Virginia, there were approximately 90 farmers that technical assistance
specialists from VSU provided support to small producers with special
emphasis on reaching minority farmers. I also employed a visiting
professor to work for FmHA in assisting farmers with technical support.
Mr. Hermon Macklin was the visiting professor for VSU and FmHA. I have
attached Mr. Macklin's reports for your review also. His report reveals
that there was concern about the small and minority farmer.
I am persuaded by my [own] personal experiences with USDA, as an
employee and a manager, that discrimination does, in fact, exist within
the ranks of this huge department; and having been on the receiving end
of off-color remarks, ethnic jokes, and insensitive behavior towards
minorities and women, it is clear to me that the ``good ol boy'' system
is still a force to be reckoned with even though we are on the verge of
entering the 21st century with new and exciting opportunities that lie
ahead for all of us. Discrimination has no place for any of us now or
in the future; it needs to be eradicated now.
I strongly recommend that these cases of discrimination be settled
as soon as possible and that any idea of reopening the Willie Crute and
John Boyd cases for reinvestigation be quashed. Any effort along those
lines would be a clear indication of double jeopardy for the victims of
discrimination.
My assessment of these issues areas follows:
A. Discrimination has been proven and a reasonable settlement should
proceed with all haste.
B. Civil rights is a people issue and it must be raised to a status
of number one priority. It cannot continue to be an
afterthought for most and no thought at all for far too
many.
C. Diversity in management is critically important in [bringing]
about change in the behavior and attitude of employees at
all levels of the USDA rank file workforce.
D. Minority farmers need an avenue of support through USDA in spite
of traditional policies that were unfriendly to small
producers.
E. The small producer issue and minority farmers must be addressed
in the farm bill now and in the future. This is such a
critical issue because it does in fact lay the footing and
the foundation for agriculture and the small producer for
the future.
F. The 1890 Land-Grant Institutions must become intimate partners
with USDA in our effort to improve our relationship with
minority farmers and to encourage women and minorities to
be willing to pursue production agriculture as a profession
and business that can be viable and support a lifestyle
consistent with that of other professions.
G. Recognize that this a major cultural change for many USDA
employees and attitudes may only be changed when managers
have the authority and flexibility to immediately take
appropriate corrective action with insubordinate and
insensitive behavior.
H. Immediately reevaluate current policy on the collection of farm
accounts to incorporate more flexibility for all rank and
file to assess the needs of each borrower on its on merit
and not allow the customer to be a victim of a ``cookie
cutter'' approach.
I. Immediately consider developing training for all USDA and non
USDA staff that will include cultural diversity,
sensitivity, civil rights and Equal Employment Opportunity,
etc.
In closing, I hope this report has been of some help to you in
gaining at least my perspective of the problems that we had in Virginia
and how we resolved some of those problems. I would be more than happy
to meet with you to discuss any part of this report at your
convenience.
Lloyd A. Jones,
State Director.
[attachments]
Quarterly Report
January, February, March 1994
H.L. Maclin,
Agricultural Management Specialist.
Fifty two (52) one-on-one contacts were made during the last
quarter. Sixty four (64) telephone calls (out going and incoming) were
made or received during the same period. These contacts were in
conjunction with agricultural management and clarification of subject
materials or documents received by borrowers from Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA). In many cases the print on the documents was so
faded out or dull that it was very hard to read much less to
understand. This situation should be corrected in the County
Supervisor's Office.
The request by two delinquent borrowers have been granted. One was
for a loan write-down and buy-out under FmHA instruction 1951-S. The
other was for homestead protection and conveyance of farm property to
U.S. Government.
I have counseled with one determined applicant to no avail. He
wants to over-shadow existing financial responsibilities. Mr. Lipscomb
contacted me at home by telephone. The call lasted over 2 hours! He
feels that he is not being treated fairly by all levels of Farmers Home
Administration. This applicant, according to reports from FmHA, has not
complied with requests for information, and he is determined to go
beyond County, District, and State Administrators in his quest for a
loan.
By request, I spent 1 day with a new SDA borrower (J. Smith) in
Prince Edward County to discuss some enterprise options for a newly
purchased farm financed by Farmers Home Administration. Mr. & Mrs.
Smith are employed full-time, and operate other business enterprises on
the side for additional income. They are young and the parents of one 4
year old. They have established goals and appear to be hard workers and
should be successful in their endeavors. Follow-up counseling is
important to assure that this family understand the justification of
purchasing additional tractor and other machinery. Purchasing another
tractor was one of Mr. Smith's high priorities. At this stage, other
options should be considered before venturing into more indebtedness.
In analyzing the farm situation, pastures need to be improved and
fenced. Once this is done the beef cattle herd should be upgraded and
numbers adjusted according to the number of acres of pasture land
available for grazing. A lot of pine trees were damaged and fallen by
the ice storm last winter. They should be cut and marketed as soon as
possible. Mr. Smith plans are to harvest the damaged timber himself and
market. Maybe this should be his first option.
Theodore Francis, a man involved in a trucking business in North
Carolina, is very anxious to establish a beef cattle herd on his one
hundred and sixty (160) acre farm in Mecklenburg County. He needs
financial assistance to get started with this enterprise. He telephoned
my home to receive information about the FmHA SDA program. A visit was
made to Mr. Francis' farm on Thursday, March 10. The farm has good
potentials for beef cattle or meat goat production. Approximately one
hundred (100) plus acres could be developed for pasture. There is a
watering and fish pond on the farm which would serve as a source of
water for livestock.
I have referred Mr. Francis to our County FmHA Supervisor in Chase
City, Virginia for possible financial assistance. On March 16[,] I
contacted the County FMHA Supervisor in Chase City to provide an
overview of my visit with Mr. Francis. It was indicated that Mr.
Francis had contacted the FmHA Office and a conference date scheduled
for Tuesday, March 22 was verified.
Participated in Farm Management Staff meetings and several county
management workshops. Assisted Farm Management Specialists with FmHA
borrowers and non-borrowers with enterprise record keeping. On March
17, visited five farm families in Southampton County to discuss record
keeping and farm management programs. I have received some feedback
from FmHA County Supervisors commending the work of Farm Management
Specialists on how helpful they have been in developing farm and home
plans for borrowers. Relationship between borrowers and county
supervisors have improved in some counties. There is a better
understanding among borrowers about the overall borrowing and payback
process, what their options are in certain financial circumstances, how
to concur with FmHA requests in many situations, and the need and
advantage of keeping farm records for each enterprise.
I have established a linkage between the FmHA Management Specialist
at Virginia State University and borrowers I have assisted, so as not
to disrupt management assistance in the future.
I have pledged my support to the FmHA Farm Management Project at
Virginia State University, and will continue to support the program and
assist the Management Specialist with the program.
January 26-28[,] I participated in the State Farmer Programs
Training Seminar at the Omni Hotel, Newport News, Virginia. The
presentations were reviews and updates of farmer programs. Emphasis on
Supervisor-Borrower relationship was a fundamental part of the
discussions. It was made clear and understood that FmHA County
Supervisors must have full knowledge of all details involved in FmHA
Farmer Programs before taking any action involving borrowers and loan
applicants. For me, the sessions were another plus to enhance the image
of FmHA Programs.
During the short period of employment by FmHA I wish to say it has
been another learning experience for me. The job was a challenging
endeavor working with rural agricultural families who needed assistance
and appeared to have had an appreciation for the help rendered through
the SDA FmHA Program.
Many thanks to the FmHA State Director for providing this
opportunity for me to serve people in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I
stand by with an open mind to support and assist Farmers Home
Administration whenever called upon in the future.
I wish to extend my appreciation to state and county staff members
who have made my job very satisfying, informative and productive. May
the program efforts continue to enhance the ``Well-Being'' of needy
families.
Thanks to the Director of Virginia Cooperative Extension and staff
for a pleasant, personal environment and working relationship during my
stay at the University. I will invariably remember the many kind and
helpful program suggestions generated by Virginia Cooperative
Extension.
Bi-Monthly Report
November and December, 1993
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
Visitation to FmHA County Offices in Farmville, Chase City,
Courtland, and Brunswick to secure SDA updates and general information
related to SDA borrowers. It is encouraging to find improvement in loan
payments and Farm and Home Plans for 1994. FmHA County Supervisors
indicated that the Farm Management Program coming from VSU is having a
tremendous impact on borrowers farming systems. Many borrowers are
beginning to realize the importance of enterprise record keeping. With
the awareness of nonprofit enterprises, borrowers and small farmers
should be able to increase farm profits.
Five socially disadvantaged farmers contacted me concerning the SDA
program. Some are interested in loans to purchase farms, and others are
looking for funds to establish livestock and poultry enterprises. I
visited several of these farmers and frequent contacts were made by
phone to answer questions or provide information relating to the FmHA
program.
Participated in two farm management meetings at VSU on November 30
and December 15. Places visited in conducting the SDA program were
Farmville, Courtland, Cumberland, Chase City, Valentines, Warfield,
Dolphin, Baskerville, and Crewe.
Other activities involved maintaining good public relationships
with Virginia Cooperative Extension and Virginia State University
through participation and involvement in Thanksgiving and Christmas
events on the University campus.
Considerable time was spent with the Farm Management Specialist in
planning FmHA borrowers workshops to be conducted in January and
February of 1994. I took some time out to enjoy the ``Holiday Seasons''
(Thanksgiving and Christmas).
During the next reporting period I am planning to work closely with
farm planning and financial management workshops; also SDA borrowers
Farm and Home Plans.
Will attend and participate in the Farmer Program Training January
26-28, 1994.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Bi-Monthly Report
September & October, 1993
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor
Fourteen visits were made during this reporting period to SDA
borrowers in Greensville, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, Southampton, and
Brunswick Counties. These visits involved updating correspondence from
FmHA, existing status, future plans, and assistance needed. My findings
were that many borrowers were faced with low crop yields and poor
quality products due to the drought. This situation will lower profits
and farm income resulting in less money to pay financial
responsibilities. Some are looking at alternative enterprises; and
others off-farm employment to supplement farm income. A few are trying
to obtain family support so as to put forth efforts to raise money and
pay off indebtedness. None want to [lose] their farms.
To soften the needs of the SDA borrowers, there are only a few
options based on the current FmHA guidelines. One possibility would be
to set up a farming system, including only enterprises that have been
proven profitable based on the geographic characteristics of the area.
Restructure the loan so that payments will be compatible to the
established farming system. ``Lease-back payback'' is a good option,
but it only applies to those borrowers showing a cash flow. What about
SDA borrowers not showing a ``cash flow'' operation? Can a farming
system be developed based on available resources that will provide
enough farm profit to show cash flow adequate for family living and
positive potential of paying off the loan? These are options that can
be initiated and closely monitored by FmHA.
Representatives from the USDA FmHA-EDS Office in Alexander,
Virginia, I-MO-FU, a co-worker and I visited and interviewed four SDA
farmers in Greensville and Brunswick Counties. The interviews were
centered around FmHA Programs each participated in and how effective
the program was in solving their problems. What were some of their
immediate needs and some of the things they thought might help them.
The ``feed back'' as a result of the visits impressed the USDA visitors
very much according to comments at the end of the day. We also visited
the Brunswick County FmHA Supervisor's office.
Participated in two farm management meetings involving FmHA and CES
Farm Management Specialist at VSU. Assisted two Management Specialists
in Southampton and Mecklenburg Counties with programs dealing with on-
farm family financial management.
Attended and participated in a Research Field Day on October 26 at
VSU's John Randolph Farm, Petersburg, Virginia. Participated in USDA
satellite program September 8 at VSU. Met with the Southside Business/
Education Commission in South Boston on September 14, and in Farmville
September 15. Also on September 15 visited the FmHA office in
Farmville, the Cumberland CES office and FmHA State Office. On
September 24 visited FmHA office in Chase City, and two borrowers in
Mecklenburg County.
On October 19 attended an Open House at the new location of FmHA
and ASCS State Offices in the Culpeper Building, 1606 Santa Rose Road,
Richmond, Virginia.
On November 5 attended a ``Gala Affair'' Agriculture Alumni Banquet
at Virginia State University.
Plans are being formulated for Borrowers Workshops to be conducted
during the months of December '93, January and February '94. Much time
will be devoted working with Management Specialists in planning and
executing these programs. Some time will be spent working one-on-one
with borrowers requesting assistance.
[August 5, 1992]
July Monthly Report (1992)
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
On July 8, 1992, I visited the last two 1951-S Socially
Disadvantaged Borrowers assigned by the State Director (Administrative
Notice (AN), Virginia AN No. 540 (1943A) dated December 20, 1991). The
purpose of this AN is to provide guidance for the Visiting Professor in
an effort to improve the assistance provided to the Socially
Disadvantaged Applicants (SDA), particularly those borrowers who are
unable to acquire the educational assistance from other sources to
interpret correspondence received from FmHA.
The Visiting Professor conducted a total of fifteen conferences
with eight SDAs assigned. These SDAs were selected by County FmHA
Supervisors in four counties. The Visiting Professor provided timely
assistance to these borrowers and made sure they understood all
proceedings coming from the FmHA, and their (borrowers)
responsibilities during 1951-S processing. The borrowers were informed
of their rights under FmHA regulations. It is the intent that no
borrower will lose the family farm merely because of lack of
information.
In all cases, borrowers have been very receptive and eager to learn
more about FmHA and their individual situation. Most borrowers realize
their management short-comings, but their financial predicament do not
look encouraging for a future turn-a-round.
On July 8, 1992[,] I visited Sylvester Warren and discussed with
him, his daughter, and son some of his related activities and
proceedings with FmHA. The following information were revealed.
Sylvester Warren age 67, Courtland, Virginia owns approximately 250
acres of farm and timber land. He grows one hundred acres of peanuts.
Of this number, he rents fifty. He also produces two hundred acres of
soybeans[,] fifty acres are grown on his farm and one hundred and fifty
acres are rented. He received [S]ocial [S]ecurity benefits, the sum of
$352.00 monthly. His liabilities from other creditors are Sovern
Peanuts Company $40,000; S.P.A. $40,000; and Southern States
Corporation $2,500. Indebtedness to Farmers Home Administration was not
revealed. He has requested a $14,000 production loan through Farmers
Home Administration for the year 1992. He has not paid FmHA anything in
several years. He is current in payments with other loaning agencies.
In 1991 twenty six thousand dollar worth of hardwood and pine
timber was sold from approximately 100 acres of timberland. Mr. Warren
indicated that he and his family cut the trees and paid a trucker to
haul logs to the market place. He also stated that the County
Supervisor for Farmers Home Administration was aware of the transaction
prior to selling the timber. He had held conferences with the County
Supervisor and told him he wanted to sell the timber to pay some debts.
If this is true, which I have no reason to doubt, the timber was sold
in good faith.
Mr. Warren filed for a crop disaster loan in 1991 with ASCS.
According to statements from Mr. Warren and Vivian (his daughter) with
the right of ``Power Attorney'', the application was misplaced or left
in the office of the ASCS. Since he has refiled for disaster loan with
no avail.
Sylvester Warren is the father of 13 children. Three daughters live
in his household. One works full time off the farm, one is in tracking
partnership business with her brothers, and one helped on the farm. Mr.
Warren's wife expired 2 years ago. His education is limited to the
first grade. He says he knows how to farm because he grew seed peanuts
10 years for a seed company in North Carolina. Mr. Warren has hired an
attorney to handle his business affairs. Telephone [Redated].
On July 8, 1992[,] I held a conference with the wife of Clifton
Slade, Surry, Virginia. She indicated that her husband Clifton had
suffered a stroke and was not able to carry on his farming and other
business activities. His nephew, Glen Slade, conducts the farming
operation on his four hundred acre farm.
Since visiting the Slade Farm, I contacted Mr. Slade by telephone
for additional information. He indicated that his son, Clifton, was
assisting him with his business activities.
I received a telephone call from Mr. Lundy, Chief, Farmer Programs,
to contact Mr. George E. Morris, Borrower, FmHA, Hwy Rt. 3, Lancaster,
Virginia, who had received 1951-S serving actions to give assistance in
filing FmHA package with County Supervisor. George E. Morris was
contacted by telephone to obtain a statement on his situation. He
indicated that he had been misinformed and needed help in dealing with
the problem.
On July 16, 1992, I visited Mr. Morris and held a conference with
him and his wife. They are retired farmers with an indebtedness of
twenty-six hundred dollars ($2,600) owed to FmHA and a four thousand
dollar ($4,000) debt with Northern Neck State Bank, Warsaw, Virginia.
They rent their farm land for twenty nine hundred dollars ($2,900)
annually. Mr. Morris indicated that his son, who lives in the District
of Columbia, helps in financial management of the farm. He had received
a 1951 Service Action Processing package from the County Supervisors
(office at Tappahannock) on June 6, 1992. He asked for assistance in
filing package. (His package was completed to be returned to the
County's FmHA Office.)
Mr. Morris appeared to have been very disoriented over the 1951-
Serving Action process. I indicated to him that he had two options.
One, file the application requesting rescheduling of payments; and,
two, borrow money and pay off the indebtedness.
Having established credit at the local bank. it appeared to be
advantageous for him to borrow the small amount of money ($2,600) owed
FmHA and pay off the loan.
As a follow-up to my visit, Mr. Morris was contacted by telephone
to check on his decision. He thanked me for the visit and the
assistance rendered in guiding him to make the decision to borrow the
money and pay off the FmHA loan. He also stated that if I ran for
President, I would get his vote.
On July 24, 1992, I participated in the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) tour in Prince Edward County. I had the opportunity to observe a
Dairy Lot Rotational Management System and a Poultry Dead Bird Litter
System. I was particularly interested in the poultry demonstration
because a FmHA borrower is applying for a loan to construct a Dead Bird
Litter System on his poultry farm. ASCS will pay 75% of the cost when
constructed in accordance to specifications.
I visited and discussed the operation of a Poultry Broiler
Enterprise System with borrower Steven Faircloth in Prince Edward
County.
I had a conference with the Chief Farmer Programs and the State
Director on July 27, 1992. Purpose--administrative procedure.
[June 15, 1992]
Virginia State University
P.O. Box 9081
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
June 12, 1992
Dear Friends:
Farm ownership loans for socially disadvantaged persons will be
discussed in the Town Hall Building, Bank Street, Waverly, Virginia on
June 23, 1992, beginning at 7:30 p.m.
The forum will be conducted by Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA)
Management Specialist. Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, FmHA will be our
guest speaker, assisted by Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs--both
from the FmHA State Office, Richmond, Virginia.
The discussion will be centered on the need, purpose, and benefits
from the SDA program to land owners. There will be 1 hour of allotted
time for group discussion on issues related to Farmer's Home
Administration programs.
We hope you will attend and participate in these activities. This
is your opportunity to meet our State Director and let him know how you
feel about the FmHA Program.
Sincerely,
Hermon Maclin,
Management Specialist FmHA.
Farm Ownership Loans for Disadvantaged Persons
FmHA Forum
June 23, 1992
Town Hall Building
Bank Street
Waverly, Virginia
Agenda
7:00 p.m. Opening Remarks H.L. Maclin
Introduction Speaker Herman Lundy, Chief,
Farmer Programs
Forum Speaker Lloyd Jones, State
Director, FmHA
8:00 p.m. Group Discussion Gladys B. Holland,
Coordinator for
Discussion
9:00 p.m. Closing Comment H.L. Maclin
June 12, 1992 *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: this dated report was duplicated in the submitted
documents, it is reproduced herein as received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia State University
P.O. Box 9081
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
Dear Friends:
Farm ownership loans for socially disadvantaged persons will be
discussed in the Town Hall Building, Bank Street, Waverly, Virginia on
June 23, 1992, beginning at 7:30 p.m.
The forum will be conducted by Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA)
Management Specialist. Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, FmHA will be our
guest speaker, assisted by Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs--both
from the FmHA State Office, Richmond, Virginia.
The discussion will be centered on the need, purpose, and benefits
from the SDA program to land owners. There will be 1 hour of allotted
time for group discussion on issues related to Farmer's Home
Administration programs.
We hope you will attend and participate in these activities. This
is your opportunity to meet our State Director and let him know how you
feel about the FmHA Program.
Sincerely,
Hermon Maclin,
Management Specialist FmHA.
May Monthly Report (1992)
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
On May 7[,] a management conference was held with Linwood Brown at
his home. We discussed his past farming program. We noted low tobacco
yields and poor quality. His hog operation wasn't paying off, he had a
low soybean yield, and he indicated a need for tobacco rotation system.
For the last 40 years tobacco has been planted on the same fields year
after year. He admitted to management problems.
Linwood agreed to cooperate with CES and FmHA in developing a
better crop rotation system and eliminating his hog project. Plans are
being developed to rotate his tobacco crop. Tobacco will be the only
crop he plans to grow in 1992. He planted pine seedlings during the
planting season to supplement his income.
On May 8[,] a visit was made to the farm of Richard Barnes, an SDA
borrower. He grows approximately 4,000 lbs of flue-cured tobacco, 50
acres of peanuts, and 120 acres of soybeans. His liabilities to FmHA is
$140,000. His setback has been due to disaster crop failure over a
period of years without insurance protection. Growing corn was his
greatest crop failure. He has no plans for growing more corn.
In talking with Mr. Barnes, he is behind in planting this year due
to inadequate production money. FmHA has not processed his production
loan (PL) he applied for in October 1991. Richard usually is the first
to plant crops in his community. He is very disturbed over the time it
is taking to process his PL. While visiting him the County Supervisor
telephoned to let him know his application has been processed, and will
be mailed to Richmond on Monday, May 11.
Applying chemicals to the land and planting seeds in the soil on
time, according to recommendations, are very necessary in maximizing
crop yields. Based on the telephone calls I have received this year
from borrowers, there is a need for investigation of loan processing
systems.
Had the opportunity to meet with USDA staff members and Chief of
Farmer Programs on May 13. At this meeting a progress report was made
to inform the staff about some of the program activities conducted
Visited borrower Linwood Brown in Brunswick County to discuss his
farm plan. It was noted that his tobacco crop was looking very good. He
indicated that he needed some more funds to complete his tobacco
fertilizer application program. He seems to have exhausted all sources
for financial assistance to no avail.
I received several telephone calls from borrowers seeking
information on issues affecting their farming business. For some,
referrals were made to the District and State Officers. Others were
handled by visits or telephone.
I have been in close contact with County, District and State
Offices in planning a district meeting for small farmers to be held in
Wakefield Town Hall on June 4 at 7:30 p.m.
On [M]ay 26-28, I was in attendance at State Cooperative Extension
Service Conference in Charlottesville, Virginia. Time permitted me to
discuss rural educational and service programs with members of the CES
staff.
June 12, 1992
Virginia State University
P.O. Box 9081
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
Dear Friends:
Farm ownership loans for socially disadvantaged persons will be
discussed in the Town Hall Building, Bank Street, Waverly, Virginia on
June 23, 1992, beginning at 7:30 p.m.
The forum will be conducted by Farmers Home Administration's (FmHA)
Management Specialist. Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, FmHA will be our
guest speaker, assisted by Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs--both
from the FmHA State Office, Richmond, Virginia.
The discussion will be centered on the need, purpose, and benefits
from the SDA program to land owners. There will be 1 hour of allotted
time for group discussion on issues related to Farmer's Home
Administration programs.
We hope you will attend and participate in these activities. This
is your opportunity to meet our State Director and let him know how you
feel about the FmHA Program.
Sincerely,
Hermon Maclin,
Management Specialist FmHA.
[May 18, 1992]
May 14, 1992
Mr. Lloyd Jones,
State Director,
Farmers Home Administration,
Richmond, Virginia
Dear Dr. Jones:
In consideration of our telephone conversation on May 4, 1991, our
FmHA staff has scheduled two (2) SDA community meetings. We are happy
and very pleased to know that you will serve as our guest speaker.
The first meeting will be held at Paul D, Camp Community College,
Franklin, Virginia on Tuesday, June 2, 1992, at 7:30 p.m.
The second meeting will be held in The Town Hall Building, Bank
Street, Waverly, Virginia on Thursday, June 4, 1992, beginning at 7:30
p.m.
You are familiar with the profile used in previous meeting you
participated in. The profile will be the same.
Sincerely,
Hermon L. Maclin,
FmHA Visiting Professor.
1992
April Monthly Report
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
The month of April began with a trip to Sussex County to visit
farmer Phillip Smith, borrower Fm.H.A. and a socially disadvantaged
person. Phillip was delinquent in 1991 Fm.H.A. payments and was
concerned very much about a production loan applied for in December,
1991. He indicated the ``dire need'' for the loan to get started with
his 1992 farm plan.
Mr. Smith admitted to the management mistakes made in 1991 and what
he plans to do about them in 1992. Too much outside labor was one thing
that cut into profits. Fuel efficiency was another management problem.
His peanut yields were above average. Soybean yields were very low,
basically due to droughty conditions.
Smith feels that he can profit in 1992 by his mistakes in 1991. He
has adequate seed stock for 1992 planting, which will save thousands of
dollars in production cost. He plans to cut labor costs and fuel fifty
percent (50%).
Mr. Smith discovered through the Cooperative Extension Services
Agent that he was wasting money buying fertilizer and lime that the
soil did not need to maximize production. In 1991, fertilizer dealers
tested the soils on his farm and recommended fertilizer and lime
application. For the year 1992, the Cooperative Extension Service Agent
assisted in soil sampling and mailing to laboratory for analysis. Tests
were returned indicating no fertilizer and lime application were needed
for 1992 crop year.
Smith qualified for disaster payments for his soybean crop.
Payments were expected in April, 1992, and will help in overcoming his
crop lost in 1991.
Since my visit with Phillip Smith a production loan has been made
through a local bank.
On April 9, a conference was held with Donnie Whitfield in the
Office of Cooperative Extension Service, Courtland, Virginia. His
primary interest is in farming, although he works a full-time job. He
grew some crops in 1990 on the family farm. He plans to farm part-time
in 1992. He hopes to get a production loan and a (FOL) loan to buy a
farm. Donnie expressed whole-heartedly the desire and love for farming.
He impressed me as a good candidate for a (FOL) Farm Ownership Loan.
Assistance was provided in making application for a production loan for
1992. Other assistance is pending based on locating a desirable farm
for sale.
County Supervisor, Ronald Norton, was visited on the same day to
discuss Donnie Whitfield's situation and the assigned borrower,
Sylvester Warren.
Ron was impressed and highly recommended Donnie as a good potential
borrower.
Sylvester Warren, 1951-S, borrower with liabilities outstanding of
approximately $175,000.00. Fm.H.A. holding second Deed of Trust on
property. Ron asked me to go out and talk with Sylvester to get a
``feel'' of the situation. I will be scheduling a visit in May.
On April 10, held conference with County Supervisor, Waverly Brown,
to get a progress report on Sylvester Holmes, Tommie Graves and Mark
Reese. Tommie Graves is in the process of completing application for a
loan to buy a 47 acre farm. Holmes and Reese are trying to get
commitments from owners of land they wish to purchase. I also had the
opportunity to visit with Mrs. Mark Reese for an update on loan
application. Assisted Mr. and Mrs. George Hendricks in filling out Farm
and Home Plan for 1992.
Attended the State Meeting for Farmers Home Administration, April
13-16, 1992, at the Marriott Motel, Norfolk, Virginia. The program
content was designed to update the staff on administrative changes and
to create a better relationship among Fm.H.A. personnel. Also, to
eliminate existing barriers between borrowers and staff members. In
essence, to improve the overall structure and image of Fm.H.A. from top
to bottom.
Visited James Garnett, County Supervisor, Mecklenburg County on
April 29, 1992. I had a very interesting discussion with Jim concerning
SDA borrowers: David Oliver and John Boyd, both are part-time farmers
working full-time in Northern, Virginia. These borrowers are delinquent
in payments, but (classified as 1951-S) in the last year are making
payments and showing considerable progress.
David Oliver John Boyd is interested in full-time farming. He
discussed his concerns with supervisor and Chief of Farmer Programs.
David John would like to borrow more money to establish a poultry
enterprise and build a dwelling for his family. Fm.H.A. is analyzing
the potentials of the proposal. No decision at the present date.
Alfred King rents a small amount of tobacco. He is a part-time
farmer. He would like to sell his farm to his son, Dennis. If this
business deal can be negotiated it would resolve Alfred's liability to
Fm.H.A.
James and Shirley Small rented and farmed forty (40) acres in 1990,
hoping to purchase the farm in 1991. In 1991, Fm.H.A. made a loan to
the Smalls of $85,000 to purchase the farm. It's a one hundred acre
farm, 4,000 lbs. tobacco and a dwelling.
The County Supervisor, Garnett, would like to visit and introduce
me to these borrowers in May. This should establish a working
relationship between SDA borrowers and the visiting professor.
[April 28, 1992]
First Quarter
Reporting Period
January 1-March 31, 1992
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
For the first quarter (1992) a great amount of time was spent
visiting by telephone and person to person contacts with County
Supervisors, Waverly Brown; Wayne Dail; Charles Featherston, and
borrowers located in their jurisdictions. On several occasions
conferences were held with the Chief of Farmer programs and the State
Director Farmers Home Administration to discuss the issues involved in
conducting the Socially Disadvantaged programs and a progress update on
some of the day by day activities. Conferences were held with the staff
members of Cooperative Extension Services to gather pertinent
information on farm enterprise budgets and analysis of farm plans.
Whenever necessary, the visiting professor has served in the capacity
of removing or preventing obstacles that prevented full participation
of those persons in Fm.H.A.'s farm ownership loan program. Have also
provided technical assistance to qualified applicants in applying for
loans and in developing sound farm and home plans essential for
successful farm operation.
L.T. Holmes; Silvester Holmes; Tommie Graves; Mark Reese; and
Charles King; Ron Ellis, potential borrowers, were visited and
contacted by telephone several times to discuss Operating Loans (OL)
and Farm Ownership Loans (FOL) and assisted in developing farm and home
plans.
Ron Ellis, by request from County Supervisor Waverly Brown,
assisted with developing a feasible Farm and Home Plan. Enterprise
options were developed with the cooperation and assistance of Anthony
Hankins, Cooperative Extension Services Specialist Alternative
Enterprises. Ron had developed a loan budget in excess of $200,000. But
in analysis income potentials results showed maximum loan budget of
$52,000. No decision has been made to make application for loan through
Fm.H.A.
Tommie Graves has filed an application for a loan to purchase a
farm. Option papers are being processed. Upon completion, he should
qualify for a (FOL) Farm Ownership Loan.
Mark Reese wishes to make application for a FOL. Application is
being processed.
Mr. Silvester Holmes, a previous borrower of Fm.H.A. is interested
in purchasing adjoining farm consisting of approximately 172 acres.
This farm was used primarily for live-stock production (beef cattle) by
owner. A considerable amount of land is open, consisting of a very good
stand of fescue and grass mixture. No * price has been established for
the property estimated at $65,000-$75,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the submission included an out of sequence set of
hand-numbered pages (34-36). They have been published in sequence
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvester owns 100+ acres of land. The land is basically pasture
land. He is a beef cattle producer which consist of 30 brood cows and a
[simmental] bull. He has adequate farm equipment for operation and
liability free. The family is in the process of building a new house on
the farm site (pay as you go). At the present time his gross income
from beef cattle ranges from $10,000 to $15,000 annually. His wife
grows tobacco with a gross income of an average $10,000 annually.
Holmes was involved in an auto accident a few years back resulting
in leaving him physically handicapped. He hires a full-time employee.
Holmes manages the farm and performs small farm chores. As soon as the
selling price of the farm (172 acres) can be determined, plans are to
make application for a loan through Fm.H.A.
On January 27, 1992, Vernon Orrell, Farmer Program Specialist,
provided some basic training in working with 1951-S. Servicing Actions
borrowers. To inform some of the right of appeal and other essentials
involved in the process.
State Director, Lloyd A. Jones, requested the visiting professor to
visit county supervisors and assist in communicating with borrowers
receiving 1951-S. Servicing Actions.
Visits and conferences were held with the following County
Supervisors to get an update on borrower assigned. They were:
a. Charles Featherston
b. Waverly Brown
c. Ronald Norton; also Barry Wright
d. George Haskett
e. Wayne Dail, by phone
Charles Featherston, County Supervisor, indicated assistance needed
by the following borrowers:
Richard Barnes (Greenville County)
Grows tobacco and peanuts. Management problem expenses too high for
some reasons. He has reduced the size on acreage but expenses remain
the same. Some question??
Visited Steven Faircloth on March 24, 1992[,] after receiving a
telephone call asking for help in management. Also discussed with Wayne
Dail, County Supervisor, Steven's situation before making the visit.
Steven has taken Chapter 7. He stated that this was a must in order
to clear some of his liabilities. Now he feels secure enough to take
care of responsibilities for his poultry (Broiler) enterprise. He
stated that he was current in his payments to Fm.H.A.
He was desirous of installing nipple drinkers in the poultry house
and building disposal facilities for his chickens. He is filing
application for same with Fm.H.A.
An invitation was extended [to] me to attend the Annual Association
Meeting the evening of March 24, 1992 in Farmville. In discussions with
the Chairman and other members it was indicated that nipple drinkers
and disposal facilities will be required by all poultry producers in
the near future.
Discussed borrower, Steven Faircloth's poultry enterprise with
Wayne Dail. Also, discussed the matter with District Supervisor, Otis
Daily. The option of installing nipple drinkers and disposal facilities
requested by Faircloth will be required by the Tyson Company in the
near future is my understanding.
Participated in a forestry field day and tour sponsored by
Cooperative Extension Service, VSU, March 7, 1992. Served on the
Governor's appointed ``Business/Education Partnership Commission'' for
Southside Virginia, and participated in two membership meetings.
Attended a swine Contract Operational Meeting in Brunswick County
on March 13, 1992 sponsored by Cooperative Extension Services. The
meeting involved Carrolls Foods of Virginia Contract Swine Production,
an agreement between producer (farmer) and Carrolls Foods of Virginia
to grow feeder pigs or/and finished hogs on a percentage contract
basis. The company furnishing animal feed and transportation to
producer and market. The farmer providing the facility, equipment,
labor and management.
Contacted the State Office (Herman Lundy) to inform management
process used by the visiting professor in processing borrowers'
proposals. Managing the potential borrower before loan application,
defining resources, liabilities, income, enterprise, potential and
capabilities of pay back.
Linwood Brown
Crop yield very low (tobacco). Quality of tobacco poor, preparing
for market poor. Swine production average pigs per sow five per year.
He purchases all of his feed. Selling hogs off butchering pole.
Need to improve crop rotation. Tobacco behind tobacco for many
years.
Calvin Brown
Trying to lease farm and buy back. Too much of a gentleman farmer.
Cannot do much without people around.
Frank Webb and Tommy Lowe in a lease back-pay-back situation. Need
assistance in management.
Visited with Mr. Waverly Brown, County Supervisor, to get an update
on the status of George Hendricks, Kenbridge, Virginia. He indicated:
Limited in educational (4th) abilities.
Assistance Needed:
Making farm and home plan
Record keeping (problem area)
Swine Operation (very poor)
Flue-cured tobacco (average)
Visited his farm and planned tentative dates for one-on-one
conference. Also, visited with Mrs. Dorothy Graves in making
application for loan to purchase 47 acre farm.
Visited with borrowers, Calvin Brown; Linwood Brown; George
Hendricks, Jr.[;] and Clifton Slade.
Visited an assigned borrower to update his farm and house plan, and
to pass on a few management practices.
Discussed, by phone, a complaint made by a borrower in Greenville
County (Charles King). The complaint involved an application for a
Fm.H.A. Guaranteed Loan to install an automatic nesting system for
layers (hens). According to King and his wife, the application was
filed in November, 1991. I received the call in March, 1992.
The visiting professor spent considerable time with Waverly Brown,
County Supervisor, in conference with Tommie and Dorothy Graves, and
Mark Reese and his wife. Both families are interested in purchasing
additional land. We also visited Ron Ellis' farm to identify resources.
[March 12, 1992]
March 9, 1992
Mr. Herman Lundy,
Chief, Farmer Programs Division,
Richmond, Virginia
Dear Mr. Lundy,
The enclosed Farm Plan supersedes plan submitted by Mr. Ron Ellis
in January 1992. Specialist Anthony Hankins, (CES) Alternative
Agriculture and I assisted Mr. Ellis in developing a revised plan that
would be feasible and logical to his status.
Mr. Ellis wasn't too pleased over the revised proposal. He plans to
meet with Mr. Waverly Brown, County Supervisor FmHA, Kenbridge,
Virginia to further discuss his intentions.
We feel that fifty one thousands two hundred dollars would be
maximum liability in the case of Mr. Ron Ellis, with this we recommend
off farm employment.
Sincerely,
Hermon L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor.
[Enclosure] *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the submission included an out of sequence set of
hand-numbered pages (51-53). They have been published in sequence
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Farm Loan Application to Establish Commercial Production of Pastured
Poultry on my Farm in Lunenburg County
Submitted to Farmers Home Administration
By: Ronald J. Ellis, 1928 Berkeley Avenue, Petersburg, VA 23805,
Phone--[Redacted]
Introduction
New meat products being sold from several commercial farms in
Virginia come from ``pastured poultry'' in the form of processed
broiler and roaster chickens. ``Pastured poultry'' refers to chickens
that are fed and grown outside within portable pens on clean grass
pastures. Pastured poultry are often also called ``range poultry.''
These poultry products offer consumers an alternative to the broiler
and roaster chickens grown within confinement buildings by farmers
under contract with large vertically-integrated poultry companies. Many
consumers are glad to have an alternative to the poultry products
offered for sale at supermarkets because they have concerns about the
safety of the big brand name poultry products. A great deal of media
attention on the vertically-integrated poultry industry has made
consumers worried about cleanliness, [S]almonella and adulterants.
Consumers have learned that chickens raised within \3/4\\2\ of living
space must be fed high levels of vitamins and antibiotics to grow. They
do not like the images seen on television of the huge automated poultry
processing plants operated by the big companies. Those processing
plants do not appear to be clean and wholesome.
The vertically-integrated poultry companies have recently caused
financial hardship for a number of Virginia farmers. Farmers who borrow
money to build confinement buildings under contract arrangement with
the big companies must face the risk that their company will move
operations away from them at some point in the future. This has
occurred at several locations in Virginia in recent years. The farmer
is left with big buildings, big debts and no markets for any broilers
they may raise.
Pastured poultry are sold at retail prices directly to consumers
and at wholesale prices to restaurants and health food stores. On farm
processing assures cleanliness and same day freshness of all poultry
sold. Pastured birds offer a completely different meat to the consumer
than the big broiler house birds.
The flavor is different. Many restaurant chefs prefer to serve
pastured poultry or ``range poultry'' to their customers because they
believe that the flavor is superior to that of factory floor chickens.
Prices paid for pastured poultry are normally twice as high as prices
paid for regular broilers ($1.00 per lb. versus $.50 per lb.)
Commercial production of pastured poultry has proven to be a
profitable enterprise for family farm operations. The best person to
contact to discuss the viability of this enterprise is Mr. Joel
Salatin, owner of Polyface Farm Inc., near Staunton, Virginia. Mr.
Salatin has been producing and marketing pastured poultry from his farm
since 1965. He developed the flock feeding and management system that
will be used on my farm in Lunenburg County. (see attached Pastured
Poultry Manual).**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Editor's note: the attachment referenced was not included as
part of Mr. Boyd's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Salatin may be reached at [Redacted].
Objectives
To establish commercial production of 20,000 broiler and roaster
chickens annually on my 84.5 acre farm in Lunenburg County.
To process and market 20,000 broiler and roaster chickens annually
from my 84.5 acre farm in Lunenburg County.
Method
In April, May and June of 1992, construct 100 floorless cages 10
by 12 by 2 high.
In July of 1992, construct a brooder house with heat lamps for
raising baby chicks. Upon completion, purchase 11,000 chicks and begin
raising them.
On August 1, 1992, stock 10,000 pullets in the 100 portable pens
and grow them out until mid-October. Market these chickens.
In mid-April of 1993, stock 10,000 pullets in the 100 portable pens
and grow them out until the end of June. Process and market these
chickens.
In early July of 1993, stock 10,000 pullets in the 100 portable
pens and grow them out until October. Process and market these
chickens.
Continue to produce and market two crops of broiler and roaster
chickens each year (20,000 birds).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable pen materials............................... $10,000
Purchased feeds...................................... 4,000
Scalders and pickers................................. 2,000
Brooder house materials.............................. 800
Baby chicks (11,000)................................. 2,500
Hired labor.......................................... 2,000
Utilities............................................ 2,000
Transportation....................................... 1,500
------------------
Total costs........................................ $25,000
------------------
Gross income from sale of 10,000 roaster chickens $20,000
==================
Net income for 1992............................ (^$5,600)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purchased feeds...................................... $9,600
Baby chicks (22,000)................................. 5,000
Hired labor.......................................... 4,000
Utilities............................................ 4,000
Transportation....................................... 3,000
------------------
Total costs........................................ $25,600
------------------
Gross income from sale of 20,000 roaster chickens $40,000
==================
Net income for 1993............................ $14,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan request from Farmer's Home Administration to $51,200
establish commercial production of pastured poultry
on my farm in Lunenburg County in 1992 and 1993:....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Annual Report
July-December 1991
H.L. Maclin,
Visiting Professor
In the first semi-annual report it was clearly stated that the
issues affecting socially disadvantage[d] people were: educational,
financial and managerial which indicate the necessity of a training and
management system in coherence with the financial assistance rendered
to borrowers by Farmers Home Administration. With facts in the proper
prospective our program initiative for the last 6 months were designed
to provide some assistance to SDA and SDP that would enhance
profitability and success. Also the wise choice of owning or purchasing
land whenever feasible.
In an effort to provide assistance to the socially disadvantage[d]
people the visiting professor visited twenty-eight farm families,
telephoned fifty-four people to plan, execute or evaluate the program
and conducted/attended fourteen staff conference. Three multi-county
(SDP) meetings were conducted involving state staff program support.
Approximately sixty-eight people attended these meetings.
For self improvement, attended three agricultural field days,
participated in two training meetings and three State Staff Meetings.
In developing better public relationship the agent serves on the
Virginia Governor's (21 member) Business/Education Partnership
Commission for Southside Virginia. Three meetings were held during this
reporting period, in which the visiting professor attended and
participated. The State Director and Chief of Farmers Program (FmHA)
were personally involved and provided administrative leadership in
administering the program.
Socially Disadvantaged
In analyzing the restraints of the Socially Disadvantaged as to the
successful endeavors undertaken, there is a tremendous need for
training and the basic knowledge for success.
To alleviate and improve upon some of the present borrow[er]
situation, one-on-one contacts by the visiting professor and community
meetings were conducted to establish a relationship between SDA and the
State Administration Lenders. So far three meetings were held involving
Farmers Home Administration personnel. The first meeting was held in
Farmville, Virginia approximately eighteen Socially Disadvantaged
people were in attendance along with the County Supervisor, Wayne Dail.
Representing the State Office were Ada Marshall and Herman Lundy, Chief
of Farmer Programs. A brief overview of the purpose of the meeting was
presented by Wayne Dail, County Supervisor FHA. The stated essence was
to inform and update people on issues affecting the Socially
Disadvantage[d] and Farmers Home Administration. The role of the
visiting professor was described as an active link between the S.D.P.
and the Chief of Farmer Programs and State Director, as to the issues
affecting the Socially Disadvantaged. The Chief of Farmer Programs,
Herman Lundy, outlined and discussed in details the background for the
establishment of funds for farm ownership loans to eligible members of
Socially Disadvantaged groups who will operate family-size farms, and
the benefits anticipated as a result of the program.
The three key points in his discussion, emphasized very clearly by
Mr. Lundy: intent of FmHA:
Make funds and farmland in the possession of FmHA more
available to socially disadvantaged persons.
Discover and remove obstacles that prevent the full
participation of those persons in FmHA farm ownership loan
programs.
Provide necessary technical assistance to qualified
applicants in applying for the loans and in developing the
sound farm management practices essential for success in their
farming operations.
Ada Marshall, Coordinator Civil Rights expressed her concern of
equal treatment for all borrowers and their rights of appeal. Group
discussion followed each presentation. Based on the reaction of the
people information presented was informative and appreciative.
On the evening of October 29, and December 18, 1991 starting at
7:30 p.m. a second and third meeting were held in Brunswick and
Lunenburg for the socially disadvantage[d] people to inform and develop
a closer relationship between the social disadvantaged people and the
State Director, Lloyd Jones, from the point-of-view of FmHA program
design. These meetings were well attended. Representatives from the
State, Lloyd Jones and Herman Lundy; from the District Offices, Berry
Wright and Otis Dailey; representing the Counties Office were
Supervisors Charles Featherstun, Waverly Brown, and Wayne Dail. Dr.
Thomas Law, President, St. Paul's College, Lawrenceville, Virginia,
represented the College's while Gladys Holland, CES VSU, Richard
Booker, Assistant Director, CES VSU and Richard Cagan, CES, CRD VSU
were representatives of Virginia State University, Petersburg, Va.
Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs described the purpose of the
meetings as a method of establishing better understanding of Farmer
programs and the State Directors's office.
It is very important for State FmHA staff and the socially
disadvantage[d] to be able to relate with each other and discuss issues
involving FmHA and the people directly affected by the program,
concluded Mr. Lundy.
Lloyd Jones, State Director, was the guest speaker at both
meetings. He started off with creating a positive attitude of FmHA by
informing the people of his concerns of issues affecting them and their
concerns were problems that concerns him and the entire staff of
Farmers Home Administration. Mr. Jones discussion was indicative of
bringing the people and the staff of Farmers Home Administration closer
together in dialogue, positive thinking and affirmative action. Mr.
Jones left no doubt in anyone['s] mind of his sincerity in the well
being of the socially disadvantage[d] people. He open the doors to the
State Office in welcoming the people to telephone or visit for a
conference at anytime or whenever an issue can not be resolved on a
county or district level. Jones sensitivity of the people problem
projected over the audience like a beacon light. The people could feel
his concerns and reacted in response.
Mr. Jones was seriously concerned by the [loss] of land by SDP and
the need for more people to re-think their priorities. The meetings
were designed to accommodate a low profile where everybody felt very
much [a part] of the discussion. The discussion periods were extended
beyond allotted time in order to give everybody the opportunity to
participate.
The need for a training system for borrowers and county FmHA board
members were emphasized during the meeting. Farm management and closer
check on SDA resources, capabilities, and past farming history were
mentioned as very important components for successful farming
enterprise.
These meetings provided an opportunity for people to meet the State
Director and ask question[s] concerning FmHA programs. A total of sixty
eight people participated in these meetings conducted by the visiting
professor. These conducted meetings were the beginning of a series of
group meetings planned in the future. We can assume that the results of
these group meetings strongly emphasizes the importance of initiating
educational assistance programs for S.D.P. and FmHA personnel. The need
for Cooperative Extension Service assistance in Farm Management;
Budgeting; Enterprise selections, alternative enterprises; and in
developing a feasible family farm.
The visiting professor attended and participated in a ``Small
Farmer Training Assistance Project Meeting'' in Washington, D.C.,
September 18-20, 1991. Representatives from several states participated
in the program sponsored by the National FmHA Administration Office. An
exchange of ideas and methods used to assist the socially disadvantaged
were presented by organized discussion groups. The meeting resulted in
providing a vast number of approaches to the problems of socially
disadvantage[d] people. Also, provided some successful examples of
assistance to family farmers.
Highlights of Small Farmer Conference--September 18-20, 1991
Washington, D.C.
Overview of Nine States Programs
Effective Teaching, Training and Success
1. One-on-one technical and financial assistance
Technical assistance to include farm, home and goals of
family
Estate planning for Black land loss and property
transfer between gener-
ations and need for wills
FmHA borrowers only to outreach primarily
2. 1890 project Cooperative Extension Program (CESP) staff to attend
FmHA training meetings to remain abreast of changes, issues
and reverse.
3. How to set up SDA project--joint decision within the State
between CEP and FmHA to address the need of State and
county, i.e., technical assistance to FmHA borrowers to
emphasize SDA outreach.
4. How to get farmers more involved--let the farmer pick the time
and place, build around issues or current problems, build
around social activities or groups, i.e., churches, friends
on technical tours (civic organizations and public
assemblies).
5. Develop materials more suitable to that clientele, i.e., FmHA
record book is too difficult choose another, i.e., CES ``
'', recipe budget box.
6. Develop a student program to create positive image for
agriculture High school, 1st grade-up, film on Hi-Tech
harvest, tours to campus, etc.
7. The Council of 1890 Presidents and interested farm groups should
put pressure (lobby) to appropriate the $10M that has been
authorized.
8. Problems if continuity of program is disrupted.
To Assure Delivery of Programs and Training
FmHA should be responsible for adequate ongoing training of SDA
employees:
a. 1890 Institution develop news articles, pamphlets, radio and TV
programs for delivery to target clientele; must be reviewed
and approved by FmHA for technical accuracy prior to
delivery to news media and public.
The 1890 extension personnel working with the SDA Project are
provided orientation training by the 1890 and 1862 Land-
Grant Institutional personnel and FmHA State Office.
During the year follow-up training should be provided by FmHA
and technical subject matter specialists from the Extension
Service.
Cooperative Agreement with 1890--FmHA
1. Model document
good
allows for flexibility
2. Paperwork/Reporting
standardized
minimized
3. Evaluation Criteria
quantifiable and realistic for Part I?
Part II criteria = more important
4. Success/Continuity
If project is successful, funding for following cycle
should be automatic (18
months = relatively short)
1890s' responsibilities for continuity
strengthening 1890s' programs
FmHA Loan Servicing/Processing
FmHA Supervisors should use all available agencies to assist in
coming up with a suitable farm plan. The potential borrower can go to
the Agricultural College, Extension Service, to assist with initial
preparation of a farm plan. FmHA County Supervisors should assist in
imputing data once received from the borrower. County Supervisors must
adhere to the statutory requirement for 30 day and 60 day milestones
for processing and notification of loan applications. A piecemeal
approach on the part of the borrower in disclosing debts and FmHA
notification incomplete request will delay processing.
Assessment of Applicant Potential for Success
Investment--Other resources
Grantee should work with individuals who have a potential for
success. 1890 county extension representatives should screen
applicants, their resources and investments and their capability for
success before bringing them to the FmHA Office. Those who are poor
candidates for success should be told.
The 1890 Institution needs to be an active participant in County,
District and State FAC meetings with other public and private
institutions and entities invited at local level as appropriate.
Continuing Extending Projects To Avoid Breaks in Service
FmHA should:
Invite proposals and extensions in a timely manner with
specific timeframes.
Statement: Need for Cooperatives
1. Small farmers should be encouraged and assisted to assemble
themselves in production units/cooperative in order to meet
market demand, receive greater return on investments, share
cost of cooling, grading, packing and transporting products
to market.
2. USDA should assist cooperatives/production units with mechanism
for financing of processing and marketing facilities by
direct loans if guaranteed loans are unavailable.
3. Hold small farm conference on alternative farm enterprise.
Include representative from successful cooperative
presenters at conference.
In regard to funding for alternative farm enterprise:
a. The Administrator should clarify and strengthen the
policy statement
on financing alternative agriculture enterprise.
Recruiting and Retaining Students
Recruitment can begin with an approach to careers in agriculture
education at an early age, teaching students about the wide array of
jobs related to agriculture.
Retention efforts may be tied to productive internships and
cooperative experiences plus tutorial programs and exposure to other
agency staff as occasional teachers using innovative teaching
techniques and field trips.
All 42 USDA agencies should be involved in recruitment for interns,
cooperative education and other types of employment opportunities at
both high school and college level.
How Can We Get More Dollars for Alternative Enterprises
Involve all agencies to make a complete analysis of farm potential
by looking at alternative enterprises that are profitable. County
Supervisors should provide guidance as well as the Extension Service.
1. Procedures and 1890 representatives need to do a better job of
developing crop budgets, marketing plans and so forth
(financial data).
2. Training FmHA employees on financing alternative crops.
3. Involving lenders (sell alternative crops).
Evaluation Summary Statement
In evaluating the program efforts, one must conclude that the
socially disadvantaged people have been denied opportunities to fully
participate in a bias society. This situation had a degenerating effect
on the economics, educational and social development of socially
disadvantaged people. To the extent of [loss] of land ownership,
economic depression, deprivation of job opportunities and inferior
educational systems.
Land loss among Blacks continue to climb above the average of all
ethnic groups. There are a few purchases but land losses are much
greater than the gains. The trend for Black land ownership look bleak.
Economic change could reverse the land ownership trend among (SDP)
socially disadvantage[d] people. The future will tell.
In conducting program efforts, emphasis on economic development
through better resource management, educational training and self
esteem were priorities in program execution. Group community meetings
one-on-one contacts, mass media, bulletins, letters, telecommunication
and conference were the methods employed to upgrade socially
disadvantaged people.
Although the program initiatives had some impact on the well being
of (SDP) socially disadvantage[d] people there still remains a wide
economic and social gap between ethnic groups in the state of Virginia.
[December 13, 1991]
Virginia State University
P.O. Box 540
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
9 December 1991
Dear Friends:
Farm ownership loans for socially disadvantaged persons will be
discussed in the Agriculture Service Building, 116 Commerce Street,
Kenbridge, Virginia on December 18, beginning at 7:00 p.m.
The forum will be conducted by Farmers Home Administration's
Management Specialist. Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, FmHA, will be
our guest speaker, assisted by Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs--
both from the FmHA State Office, Richmond, Virginia.
The discussion will be centered on the need, purpose, and benefits
from the SDA program to land owners. There will be 1 hour of allotted
time for group discussion on issues related to Farmers Home
Administration programs.
We hope you will attend and participate in these activities. This
is your opportunity to meet our State Director and let him know how you
feel about the FmHA Program.
Sincerely,
Hermon Maclin,
Management Specialist, FmHA
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[October 17, 1991]
Virginia State University
P.O. Box 540
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
16 October 1991
Dear Friends:
Farm ownership loans for socially disadvantaged persons will be
discussed on October 29 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Government
Building located on Tobacco Street, Lawrenceville, Virginia.
The forum will be conducted by Farmers Home Administration's
Management Specialist. Lloyd A. Jones, State Director, FmHA, will be
our guest speaker, assisted by Herman Lundy, Chief of Farmer Programs--
both from the FmHA State Office, Richmond, Virginia.
The discussion will be centered on the need, purpose, and benefits
from the SDA program to land owners. There will be 1 hour of allotted
time for group discussion on issues related to Farmers Home
Administration programs.
We hope you will attend and participate in these activities. This
is your opportunity to meet our State Director and let him know how you
feel about the FmHA Program.
Sincerely,
Hermon Maclin,
Management Specialist, FmHA
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[July 16, 1991]
Semi-Annual Report
Farmers Home Administration
Virginia State University
Petersburg, Virginia
June 30, 1991
Hermon L. Maclin,
(Visiting Professor).
The visiting professor serves as an adviser to the State Director
in matters concerning Black-owned farms and other socially
disadvantaged borrowers. Efforts are made to enhance management of
socially disadvantaged farm families and to establish a closer rapport
with Virginia State University.
In an effort to focus attention on objectives of the Socially
Disadvantaged Program, the visiting professor performed a varied number
of activities. Seventy eight (78) days were spent during the months of
January through June 1991 conducting the program.
Special emphasis was placed on locating and assisting socially
disadvantaged families who may qualify for FmHA assistance; to inform
and advise the general public and special interest groups about
available FmHA agricultural assistance; to identify resources available
to SDA; and to make recommendations for alternative farm enterprises
which would enhance profitability.
Socially Disadvantaged Program (SDA) objectives were presented to
members of the NAACP in Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties. Programs
were duplicated, in Charlotte and Halifax Counties, February 20 and 28
respectively to members of the County Assembly. Total attendance at the
meetings was 140. A workshop was conducted in Farmville, Va on March
20, 1991.
Approximately 15 people attended this activity in the ASCS
Conference Room. The Chief, Farmer Programs and the Civil Rights
Coordinator made presentations. Mr. Herman Lundy, Chief, Farmer
Programs, outlined the procedures and requirements for obtaining SDA
loans, what is required from the borrowers and what to expect from
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). Ms. Ava Marshall, Civil Rights
Coordinator expressed her concern about equality of treatment for all
borrowers as provided by the Civil Rights Act, and your right to
participate.
The duties of the visiting professor and the program objectives
were defined in common terms to clarify some of the terminology. For
example there were questions concerning the eligibility for a SDA loan.
Can an individual receive a loan on the basis of sufficient education
or training without having farming experience (within 1 year of the
last 5)? This question needs further clarification so as to leave no
doubt in anyone's mind on the matter of qualification for borrowers.
Wayne Dail, County Supervisor, FmHA, extended an invitation and
encouraged borrowers to visit his office for assistance at anytime.
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) was represented at the meeting by
Kylor Reed, Agent, and Warren Scott, Technician. The participants
expressed their appreciation for receiving a better understanding of
the SDA and FmHA at-large program.
Six visits were made to discuss the SDA Program with FmHA
Supervisors in Halifax, Lunenburg, Prince Edward, Southampton,
Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties. A list of SDA borrowers were
provided by the County Supervisors that perhaps would need some
managerial help. Conferences were conducted with Cooperative Extension
Service in Dinwiddie, Greenville, Southampton, Brunswick, Lunenburg,
Nottoway, Sussex, Surry and Amelia Counties. Each Cooperative Extension
Service unit was provided with [an] overview of the FmHA SDA programs
and was asked as an educational source to inform the public.
Twenty on-farm visits were made during the work period. Discussions
involved crops to plant for profit, non-profitable crops for the
farming area, and general management practices. On several occasions
visits were made to inform the borrowers about the SDA programs.
Approximately 100 telephone calls were received and made to discuss
program objectives, planning activities, scheduling appointments, and
responding to request. Many conferences were held with the Chief,
Farmer Programs (Herman Lundy); staff members Gladys Holland, Joel
Plath, and CES Director Dr. Lorenza Lyons and Vice President Dr.
Clinton Turner.
At the request of Ben Lee, Vocational Agricultural Instructor,
Southampton County a ``pep'' talk was given to 18 high school students
enrolled in vocational agriculture at the Southampton High School,
Courtland, Virginia. The discussion involved the importance of securing
a good education for personal satisfaction or self-esteem, for public
service, economic future, better livelihood, a resource for better
community development, and the ``Well Being of the Family.'' Outlined
career opportunities in areas of agriculture and related occupations,
and what is required in order to compete with the ``working world?''
Closing remarks were centered around the agricultural program at
Virginia State University and would like for each class member to
consider attending The State Land-Grant University.
A very small number of people attending the group meetings were
engaged in farming. Nevertheless, the people were interested in knowing
more about the FmHA programs for the benefit of informing others who
may need the service. Several farmers indicated their desire for
further contacts with the representatives from the FmHA. The names,
addresses and telephone numbers are a part of our files at VSU for the
purpose of future contacts.
The on-farm visits with borrowers indicates a need for better farm
records. Record books are provided but very few farm enterprise records
are kept. This creates a problem when time comes for farm planning.
There is no way of pin-pointing profitable farm enterprises without
records of the past farming year. Although there are crop and livestock
budgets available each farming operation is different. So the average
budget in many cases are not applicable. Many farm operations need
assistance in decision making. If the operation is without any records
of the last years cropping system, it is hard for operators or
management specialist to make the right decision for the current year.
A farm management specialist knowing the land capabilities for the
State of Virginia could inform the farm operator what to expect in
return from each enterprise.
Judging from observation, capital investment is one of the major
causes for the situation borrowers are confronted with today. A large
number of borrowers have purchased additional tractors for certain jobs
only, to avoid the time it takes to change equipment. The same job in
many instances, can be done with one tractor. This management system
cuts profits and should be closely monitored.
Traditional farming is one of the major obstacles of many socially
disadvantaged farm families today. Growing a set number of acres of
grain, so many acres of hay, etc., because of tradition, can be costly
to the farming operation. The cropping system should be designed to
fill the needs of the operators and at the same time show a profit. For
an example, corn cannot be grown in South Central Virginia for a profit
based on current prices. The cost input per acre for corn on the
average is about $240.00. Average corn prices paid to producers amount
$2.40. A very few farmers will average 100 bushels of corn per acre. At
$2.40 per bushel this is only the ``break-even point.'' For assurance
reasons only, corn production in a livestock operation may be
justified.
There are other farm enterprises that should be eliminated in
farming situations in order to establish a profitable unit. These
factors must be taken into consideration when we establish farm plans
for borrowers. Cooperative Extension Service and CSRS at Virginia State
University have established farm enterprises designed for small
farmers. Some of these enterprises could be profitable for some
borrowers.
The socially disadvantaged borrowers are confronted with many
management problems. A large number were ``share croppers'' before
becoming borrowers and potential owners. They are confronted with new
horizons--decision making. Quite often, the wrong decision is made,
resulting in poor farm management. Perhaps this could have been
prevented through some form of educational channel. Maybe a farm
management backup system. During the several conferences with FmHA
County Supervisors, it was indicated that the socially disadvantaged
borrowers needed more assistance in management and that the existing
condition of FmHA (S-51) could have been because of poor supervision.
Many socially disadvantaged borrowers become wors[e] off
financially as a result of borrowing money and over-extending their
capabilities to manage their farming operation than they were before
making the loan. When this type of situation occurs the relationship
between the borrowers and Farmers Home Administration changes from a
positive attitude to a negative attitude. In this state of affairs the
image of the loaning agency culminates into a very undesirable state of
being. To prevent or reduce to the minimum discontent between both
parties, perhaps an analysis of the past records should be made to
determine what went wrong; based on findings establish guidelines and
procedures that will better fit the needs of SDAs and not their
destitutions.
Socially disadvantaged people will continue to be victims of
landownership losses unless something can be done to instill in the
minds of young people that ``owning land is a precious heritage and
without it, there is no legal independency to live on.''
Most of our professionals in teaching positions have taught our
youth to endeavor in careers other than agriculture. This in many
respects, have dampened the minds of young people and their
appreciation for land ownership. Blacks who lived on and farmed the
land operated with limited resources. This created hardship for many
Black families causing many family members to leave the farm and the
land with no intention of returning; nor maintaining family ownership.
Blacks who worked as share-croppers worked hard, but owned nothing.
They were poorly educated and whenever the opportunity presented itself
they would migrate to cities with an attitude of hate for land.
Recommendation
In order to be more serviceable in making loans to the socially
disadvantaged clientele, FmHA should take a closer look at guidelines
in determining eligibility for socially disadvantaged applicants. For
example, potential borrowers with farming experience or training in
agriculture should be considered not on the basis of having farmed 1
year of the last 5, but on the basis of farming experience,
agricultural training, managerial ability, available resources and
other human traits important to successful business endeavors.
SDA needs more on-farm management assistance during the production
of farm enterprises. Perhaps more when the borrower has farmed as a
tenant, when all farm management decisions were made daily by the
landowner. Being accustomed to executing decisions and not making any,
puts the borrower in a situation where management becomes a new chore
that is difficult to cope with, from the standpoint of making the right
decision. A farm management specialist could assist these borrowers
whenever these problems occur.
A closer check on farm machinery, equipment and buildings should be
done to ascertain proper maintenance. Through my observation some
borrower's roofs on buildings are falling in because of negligence.
Machinery is improperly housed and in need of repairs.
Farm enterprise recordkeeping should be enhanced and put on the
priority list of demands. Maybe the official FmHA record book should be
revised to better fit the requirements and at the same time much easier
for the borrower to record farm transactions. More emphasis and time
should be considered in writing individual farm plans. No two farming
situations are alike. This being true, all precautions should be used
in choosing farm enterprises adaptable to the operator and show
profitability.
It is believed that much more can be done to help borrowers who are
in default and classified as FmHA 51-S. There is a need for a
comprehensive program to study the situation and other factors
responsible for a large number of socially disadvantaged borrowers who
are victims.
Based on the list of borrowers received from Farmers Home
Administration County Supervisors, it was indicated that over fifty
percent of the socially disadvantaged borrowers were classified as FmHA
51-S--Default in payments. With this type of situation involving most
of the Counties it is a possibility that socially disadvantaged farmers
will continue to lose land and capital at an increasing rate. On the
other hand, the initiation of an educational enhancement program and
establishing some new initiatives will perhaps slow down the present
trend.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rise Up--Celebrate Our Successes
1991 Conference of Extension Professional Associations
May 28-30, Lynchburg Radisson
Tuesday 7-9:00 p.m. Board meetings (if
needed)
Wednesday, May 29 7-9 a.m. Early arrival
refreshments
hospitality room
8:00 Registration, Hotel
lobby
9:00 Benefits Update, Kenneth
Martin--Ballroom
9:50 Break
10:10 Association Committee
Meetings
11:00 VESA State Committee
Meetings
11:00 Professional Improvement
Seminars (3)
11:45 Buffet Luncheon hosted
by VESA and ``Special''
after lunch program for
all attending
1:30 p.m. Professional Improvement
Seminars (2)
1:30 VAE4-HA Annual Meeting
2:30 Refreshment break
2:50 Epsilon Sigma Phi Annual
Meeting
3:00 Professional Improvement
Seminar for Agents with
less than 5 years
service and Agents not
E.S.P. members. ``Jest
For The Fun Of It''
sponsored by VESA
4:15 DSA Awards Presentation
sponsored by VAEHE. All
conference participants
please attend!
6:00 Country Dinner sponsored
by VAEHE
7:30 Board Meetings (if
needed)
7:30 Social sponsored by
VAEHE
Thursday, May 30 8:00 a.m. VAAEA and VAEHE Annual
Meetings
8:30 Professional Improvement
Seminar, VAE4-HA
10:00 Refreshment Break
10:20 VESA Annual Meeting
11:45 Hotel check-out
12:15 Awards Luncheon hosted
by Epsilon Sigma Phi
2:00 Conference evaluation
and comment
2:15 Association Board
Meetings
2:30 VESA Board Meeting
3:00 Have a safe trip home!
Committee lists and detailed meeting locations will be in
your packet upon arrival. Country Dinner location will be announced
via electronic mail 1 to 2 weeks prior to the conference.
The elements of the program are listed as of 2/15/91 and
may be subject to slight changes. Contact Gene Daniel in
Gloucester, EXO73, if you have a problem or question prior to
registration.
No registration needed for P.I. seminars. First come . . .
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Farmers Home Administration
Progress Report--August and September, 1990
Visiting Professor (Management Specialist)
The Socially Disadvantaged Program (SDP) effort in conjunction with
Virginia State University, involving Cooperative Extension Service
(CES) as liaison to the program, is being administered in twelve
counties. One staff meeting was held with the Director of CES and the
Associate Vice President for Agriculture and Extension to discuss on-
going activities. Seven conferences were held with CES agents in
Sussex, Southampton, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Charles City, and
Brunswick. These conferences were designed to enhance the program
objectives. Three staff meetings and several telephone conferences were
held with Chief Farmer Programs Director, and one with the State
Director, Farmers Home Administration, and Chief Farmer Programs
Director for the purpose of program evaluation and recommendations.
Visited four (4) farm families who were interested in SDA program
loans.
The Visiting Professor worked thirty three (33) days conducting
educational presentations at group meetings held by Civic
Organizations, NAACP Chapters, Churches, and Farmers Home
Administration Districts. Conferences were held with County (Fm.H.A.)
Supervisors in Charles City, Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Prince Edward,
Cumberland, Greensville, Lunenburg, and Franklin (special assignment)
Counties.
In the office, research was conducted on Farmers Home
Administration procedures and policies. Also did some research on Black
Demographics. Weekly conferences were held with CES staff associated
with Fm.H.A. programs to coordinate efforts, exchange ideas,
activities, and accomplishments. Telephone calls were made to schedule
group meetings, staff conferences, and one-on-one farm visits.
During group meetings in Prince Edward County a number of questions
were asked about Fm.H.A. policies and County Supervisor. Some felt that
they were not treated fairly on several occasions. Others discussed the
hassle they were confronted with along with too much ``red tape''. A
list of names interested in buying land was provided for loan
consideration. In churches the ministers requested an area meeting for
the benefit of several counties to discuss farm ownership loans for
socially disadvantaged persons. Based on conferences with a number of
CES staff members and Fm.H.A. County Supervisors, there need to be some
changes in policies and guidelines if we are to help the SDP in
Virginia.
In summary and evaluation there are indications that more and more
SDAs are [losing] land than ones gaining land. Socially Disadvantaged
People are eager to purchase or maintain their farms. Yet in many
instances, financial difficulties have prevented them from doing
either. A large number need to be taught management skills once they
become borrowers.
Maybe the existing situation is due to over-priced appraisals at
the initial phase of the borrower's purchase. Allowing loans for the
purchase of excess machinery, equipment, and supplies (chemicals, etc.)
are other symptoms of financial disaster. A majority of borrowers were
faced with the problem of making management decisions. They have the
technique and ability to perform the farm chores, but they lack the
ability of deciding what to do when. This is the result of being a
share-cropper where the landlord made the decisions and the cropper did
the work. When Fm.H.A. grants a loan to a tenant farmer to purchase a
farm and operate same, he is being placed in a somewhat different
situation. He has to make the decisions and perform the farming
activities. Making the wrong decision has been the failure of many
borrowers.
Approximately six hundred (600) people have been contacted in group
meetings, churches, NAACP meetings, farm visits, and by telephone.
During the state of being in communication with people, program
initiatives were outlined and questions answered according to
established guidelines. A list of NAACP State Chapter Presidents, and
meeting dates have been obtained.
In response to program efforts, sixteen (16) telephone calls were
received requesting more information. In the designated counties, seven
conferences were held with County Farmers Home Administration
Supervisors. By special request, conferences and visits to SD Borrowers
were made in September. To date there are six socially disadvantaged
people who are potential land buyers who plan to make applications for
Fm.H.A. loans.
Based on past experience, knowledge of the Fm.H.A., S.D.A.'s
situation, policies and guidelines of Farmers Home Administration and
the brief period of direct exposure to the system, I am recommending
for consideration the following:
Establish different guidelines for the Socially
Disadvantaged Applicants (S.D.A.)
Provide for on-farm management for borrowers (Farm
Management Specialist)
a. Cost of capital (land, equipment) is not in access of market
value.
b. Variable cost of production per acre is complementary to
area.
c. Crop enterprises selected on the basis of land capabilities
and use. (Livestock and poultry if feasible.)
Define justifiable machinery and equipment needed for
maximizing farm profits. (Too many ``borrowers'' can't justify
equipment.)
Keep a closer check on maintenance (machinery, buildings,
equipment).
Require complete recordkeeping for each enterprise (to
determine profitability).
Organize a special program to rescue 51-S borrowers (a large
number of SDA's fall in this category).
Change guidelines for foreclosure borrowers (more family
participation, if agreed upon).
Farmers Home Administration
Management Specialist
(Visiting Professor)
Farm Family Information Sheet
Name____________________________________________________________________
________________
Address_________________________________________________________________
_________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________
Telephone
Number_________________________________________________________________
______
Family Family Age of
Size________________ Health_____________ Operator____________
Formal
Education______________________________________________________________
__________
Type of
Farm___________________________________________________________________
_________
Number of Open Farm
Acres____________ Land________________________________________
Pasture Forest
Acres_____________ Land________________
Timber_________________ Cutover_______________
__ _____
Homestead
Acres__________________________________________________________________
_______
Farming Experience (Number of
Years)____________________________________________________
Organization
Affiliation(s)_________________________________________________________
________
Farming--Part- Or Full-
Time______________________________________ Time_______________
Workforce (Number) Hired_________________
Family_______________________________ _____
Crops
Grown__________________________________________________________________
___________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________
Livestock Raised
(Number):
Cattle_________________ Swine__________________ Other_________________
____ ___ ____
Poultry (Number):
Kind__________________
___
Children In:
4-H High College_______________
Clubs_______________ School________________ _____
_
Program Participation (County, State,
National)____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________
CES____________________ FmHA___________________ S.C.S.________________
_ __ _____
ASCS___________________ Other_________________
___ ____
Management Problems:
1.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
2.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
3.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
4.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
5.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
Credit Available:
1.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
2.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
3.______________________________________________________________________
_________________
Credit Needs To Be Used For:
1. Farm
Operations_____________________________________________________________
__________
2. Real Indebtedness___________ Purchases_____________
Estate______________ _____ _____
3. Others: (List Below)
________________________________________________________________________
_________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________________
Management Specialist Comments:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 1990
Farmers Home Administration
Progress Report
Management Specialist
H.L. Maclin
(Visiting Professor)
The agent (representative) spent a large amount of time studying
Farmers Home Administration Policies and Guidelines. Orientation was
accomplished through staff meetings and staff member conferences.
We have collected a list of socially disadvantaged applicants
(SDAs) from Brunswick and Greensville Counties. So far three on-farm
contacts have been made to discuss the management system. The SDA's
present farm management system will be the main component in making
recommendation for change in the farming and administrative systems.
A list of community organizations have been obtained from the
``Target Counties''. From this list, three program presentations were
made in July.
Dialogue between the agent and from Fm.H.A., County, and District
Supervisors have been encouraging. The agent has received several calls
from prospective clients for more information about the SDA program
activities.
Overall the program is challenging. It gives the agent an
opportunity to ``pick-up-on'' and analyze some of the major issues
confronting the socially disadvantaged applicants.
A Farm Family Information Sheet was prepared to be used when
interviewing SDAs (copy enclosed). When completed, it will provide some
basic information.
Visiting Professors Program
July 8, 1983
Purpose: To establish closer rapport with the 1890 institutions.
During the first year, this summer, the visiting professor will study
agency programs and operations to determine methods for improving
Black-owned farms in Alabama through greater understanding and
adaptation of financial programs available through the Farmers Home
Administration.
Authorization: Un-numbered memorandum, dated May 22, 1983, directed
selected states to employ visiting professors from 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions. Alice Oakley Byrd of EEO Staff, National Office, has
advised that Alabama should limit hiring to one professor from either
Alabama A&M or Tuskegee Institute.
Employment Data: Appointment is under Schedule A--noncompetitive.
Salary will depend on qualifications of selected professor; GS-11
($11.78 per hour) or GS-12 ($14.12 per hour). The appointment is
limited to 130 working days per year. Tour of duty may be full-time or
part-time (interpreted as 130 part or whole days). Duty hours can be
changed from month-to-month, but there must be definite duty hours and
a duty station.
Applicants: Three (3) professors have expressed interest in the
Visiting Professors Program and have been scheduled to be interviewed
for the position allocated to Alabama this year. They are:
1.* Dr. Joseph Befecudu (pronounced Befecartre)--Department of Agri-
Business--Alabama A&M. Appointment: 9:00 a.m., July 15,
1983.
2.* Dr. Jones, Department of Agri-Business, Alabama A&M.
Appointment: 9:00 a.m., July 15, 1983
3. Professor Voncile Hale--Tuskegee Institute Appointment: 3:00
p.m., July 14, 1983
* The above professors will be accompanied by Dr. Preyer who
is the Dean of the Agri-Business Department at Alabama A&M. Dr.
Preyer would like to meet the State Director.
Contact at Alabama A&M:
Dr. Aytch (pronounced H)
Telephone 859-7302
Agricultural Mgmt. Specialist
GS-475-12
A. Introduction
This position is located in the Farmers Home Administration,
District Office. The incumbent of this position serves as an advisor to
the State Director in matters concerning Black-owned farms. The
incumbent will strive to improve operation of the Black-owned farms and
will strive to establish a closer rapport with the 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions.
B. Major Duties and Responsibilities
Explores alternatives and prepares analytical materials and
collects documentation necessary for final action by State
Director.
Identifies and evaluates options to increase income on small
farm operations and identifies and evaluates current enterprise
combinations and practices utilized by small farm operators.
Determines the level of knowledge and utilization of
services of selected public and private farm-related
organizations and attitudes toward use of these services by
small farmers.
Identifies resources--their availability and accessibility
to small farmers.
Conducts studies to determine the extent off-farm income
among small farmers that contributes to the total family income
and farming operations.
Evaluates and describes marketing channels utilized by small
farm operators and reports to State Director facts found.
Analyzes field program activity reports to determine trends
or detect weaknesses and recommends measures or prepares
materials to remedy conditions noted and informs State Director
of same.
Informs and advises the general public and special interest
groups about available agricultural and other rural credit
assistance.
Formulates the quality and level of available labor and the
timing of off-farm employment on the selection of farming
enterprises.
Prepares reports and submits to State Director on items such
as:
1. Recommend program changes or new programs which would
accomplish the
objective of saving the Black-owned farm.
2. Identify steps which could be taken to reduce the loss of
Black-owned farms
under existing FmHA and other USDA programs.
3. Compare the loss of Black farmers to the situation in other
states with sig-
nificant Black population and Black ownership of farms.
4. Investigate and analyze the farming operations of Black-owned
farms in Alabama.
Factor 1. Knowledge Required of the Position
Position requires a comprehensive knowledge of problems related to
farming practices in the rural areas. Must have a basic knowledge of
FmHA program objectives, regulations, and policies, and an
understanding of financial practices, tax laws, and legal structures,
and the state and local realty laws. Must have the ability to evaluate
and analyze techniques to effectively assess small farming operations.
Factor 2. Supervisory Controls
Incumbent works under the general supervision of the State
Director, working closely with other State Office program officials and
direct day-to-day supervision of the District Director. The employee is
assigned duties in terms of objectives, general ground rules, but must
plan and carry out specific duties on personal initiative. The broad
scope of duties requires an ability to determine the proper priority of
each of the tasks to be performed. Because of constant travel and type
of work to be done, supervision is extremely limited.
Factor 3. Guidelines
Guidelines in the form of FmHA Instruction and policy are available
(also assistance of District Director or other FmHA employees), but
considerable judgment is required in applying them to a variety of
financial entities--no two of which are comparable--involving loans for
farming. Follows National and State Office administration and
management instructions in assessing rural needs and operations and
regulating corrective procedures.
Factor 4. Complexity
Complexity of this position rests with developing program
objectives, and for exercising broad program evaluation. Extensive
coordination and joint planning contacts with other governmental
agencies and public groups to develop program activities are required.
Factor 5. Scope and Effect
Programs administered involve the physical and economic well being
of a substantial population of the small community and rural segment of
the State.
Factor 6. Personal Contacts
Contacts are with borrowers, prospective borrowers, attorneys,
representatives of other lending organizations, and with management
officials of Farmers Home Administration, etc.
Factor 7. Purpose of Contacts
Contacts are for the purpose of amassing data and/or explaining
program requirements; to assess rural needs, to report deficiencies or
problems encountered; and to ascertain or give information concerning
FmHA function.
Factor 8. Physical Demands
The work requires some physical exertion; walking over uneven,
rough, maybe rocky surfaces, but mostly work can be accomplished in an
office setting. No special physical demands are required to do the job.
Factor 9.
The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts which
require normal safety precautions typical of such places as office,
meeting rooms, and residences or commercial vehicles. The office area
is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated.
Fact Sheet
Visiting Professors Program
In our letter to Tuskegee and Alabama A&M we stated that the
visiting professor would report on ``methods to improve Black-operated
farms and increase survival of Black-owned farms in Alabama through
greater understanding and adaptation of the financial programs
available through the Farmers Home Administration''.
To prepare such a report we would expect the individual employed to
work as follows:
1. Thoroughly research FmHA farm programs and procedures in order to
obtain an in-depth understanding of the Agency's farm
programs.
2. To investigate and analyze the farming operations of Black-owned
farms in Alabama.
3. Compare the loss of Black farmers in Alabama to the situation in
other states with significant Black population and Black
ownership of farms.
4. Identify steps which could be taken to reduce the loss of Black-
owned farms in Alabama under existing FmHA and other USDA
programs.
5. Recommend program changes or new programs which would accomplish
the objective of saving the Black-owned farm.
Note
The visiting professor program is not a contract program
requiring a specific product. The visiting professor will be an
employee of the Farmers Home Administration under the general
supervision of the State Director and immediate supervision of
the District Director in the duty station area. As an employee
the visiting professor will be expected to report to his or her
duty station and work toward the above objectives which my be
expanded or refined during the terms of employment.
George S. Kennard,
Administrative Officer.
July 14, 1983
[December 19, 1983]
Subject: Reaffirmation and Survey of FmHA's Visiting Professor's
Program
To: State Directors, FmHA *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia
On May 23, 1983, in response to President Reagan's Executive Order
12320 instructing Federal Agencies to increase the percentage share of
program funds allocated to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, I issued a memorandum establishing a program for the
participation of 1890 Land-Grant Institutions in FmHA-sponsored
programs. Our first effort in this regard was to implement a visiting
professor's program in selected States by seeking to employ an 1890
institution faculty member commencing with the summer of 1983. I wish
to reaffirm this effort.
We need to continue our commitment to the visiting professor's
program. Our objectives, as described in my memorandum of May 23, 1983,
will not be attained with last summer's effort alone. Our effort last
summer was merely the first step in reaching our objectives, not the
program's beginning and end. In this regard, some States--inadvertently
misinterpreting the scope of the program--limited their effort to the
summer months of 1983. What we are striving to accomplish, however, is
a dynamic and substantive program continuing from year-to-year on a
year-long basis having mutual benefit to FmHA and the institutions
because of our close rapport and improved relationship. Our visiting
professor's program, therefore, is a continuing effort, and you should
gauge your involvement in the program with the broader scope in mind.
A survey of States, taken in the second week of November, revealed
that only one State had a visiting professor on its employment roles.
There were four States, however, which were making plans to hire a
professor during the school year 1983-84. The remaining 10 States had
appointed no visiting professor, and moreover, their intentions were
unclear at the time of the survey. I therefore urge those States having
employment plans to follow through with them, and those States having
no activity to initiate contact with the 1890 institutions without
delay. A sample position description, which you should tailor to your
State, is attached to facilitate the hiring process. For additional
assistance, you may get in touch with Steve Klink, National Office
Personnel Division on FTS-382-1071.
Further, we have learned that success with these institutions is
more likely to occur when the dean of agriculture is the person in the
institution who is contacted. This approach is recommended, even though
the attachment to my memorandum of May 23, 1983, lists the names and
addresses of the Presidents of the 1890 institutions.
[December 15, 1983]
Subject: Support of Historically Black Colleges and Universities--
Community Facilities
To: State Directors, FmHA: AL, AR, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MA, MS,
MO, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV
This is a follow-up to two previous memoranda concerning Farmers
Home Administration's (FmHA) commitment to implement the President's EO
12320, supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).
In response to EO 12320, I established a program for the participation
of HBCU's in FmHA programs.
My memorandum of May 11, 1983, requested each State Director to
submit a report on actions taken to implement the FmHA policy regarding
HBCU's. As of this date we have not received all of the reports. Please
review your records and promptly submit your report if you have not
done so.
All of the listed HBCU's in your State should have been contacted.
If the HBCU's have not been contacted plans should be made to do so. It
may be appropriate to schedule a follow-up on previously contacted
HBCU's.
It is important that you express FmHA's sincere desire to assist
the HBCU's in any manner possible consistent with our program
regulations. It is imperative that in your contacts the appropriate
officials are made aware of FmHA programs. The Deans or Chairpersons of
the various departments as well as Board members and Presidents should
be furnished information that explains FmHA programs.
We must continue our commitment to the policy as exemplified in EO
12320. Our efforts to date have only been the beginning of a continuing
emphasis. We are striving to develop a dynamic, substantive, ongoing
program that will have mutual benefit to the HBCU's and FmHA. Your
support and actions are vital and I am sure that your contribution will
be substantial.
Charles W. Shuman,
Administrator.
Visiting Professor Program
I. Hiring Authority
A. One temporary part-time employee
B. Period is for 1 year
C. Workday equivalent--120 days
D. Salary--$30,549 annually (Full-Time Figure) paid bi-weekly
E. Headquartered at Petersburg County Office
F. Appointment non-competitive
II. Work Requirements
A. Major Duties and Responsibilities (Exhibit A)
B. Normal weekly Tour of Duty will be Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.
C. Exception will be made for specific scheduling of Night Meetings
as well as weekend meetings with farmers.
D. Specific duties will be assigned upon entrance on duty.
III. Job Criteria
A. Employed by an 1890 Land-Grant Institution
B. Teaching experience in Agriculture. Preference given to Agri-
Business and Agri-Finance.
C. Must acquire basic knowledge of FmHA program objectives,
regulations and policies.
D. Understanding of financial practices, tax laws, legal structure,
realty laws and record keeping.
IV. Supervisory Controls
A. General supervision of State Director.
B. Day-to-day supervision of District Director.
V. Resources for Job Performance
A. Essential supplies available in headquarters office.
B. Telephone service
C. Travel
1. Reimbursement at rate of 20.5 per mile
2. Use of GSA vehicle
3. Overnight per diem reimbursement
VI. Previous Contact With VSU
A. April 1983 with Dr. B.B. Archer--School of Agriculture
B. February 7, 1984 with Dr. Archer
C. Letter dated February 23, 1984 (Exhibit B)
VII. Specific Duties
A. Thoroughly research FmHA farm programs and procedures in order to
obtain an in-depth understanding of the Agency.
B. To investigate and analyze the farming operations of Black owned
farms in Virginia.
C. Compare the loss of Black farmers in Virginia to other states
with significant Black population and ownership of farms.
D. Identify steps which could be taken to reduce the loss of Black
owned farms in Virginia under existing FmHA and other USDA
programs.
E. Determine the extent that Limited Resource Loans are made by FmHA
to deter the loss of Black farm ownership.
F. Recommend program changes or new programs which would accomplish
the objective of saving Black owned farms.
Agricultural Mgmt. Specialist
GS-475-12
A. Introduction
This position is located in the Farmers Home Administration,
District Office. The incumbent of this position serves as an advisor to
the State Director in matters concerning Black-owned farms. The
incumbent will strive to improve operation of the Black-owned farms and
will strive to establish a closer rapport with the 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions.
B. Major Duties and Responsibilities
Explores alternatives and prepares analytical materials and
collects documentation necessary for final action by State
Director.
Identifies and evaluates options to increase income on small
farm operations and identifies and evaluates current enterprise
combinations and practices utilized by small farm operators.
Determines the level of knowledge and utilization of
services of selected public and private farm-related
organizations and attitudes toward use of these services by
small farmers.
Identifies resources--their availability and accessibility
to small farmers.
Conducts studies to determine the extent off-farm income
among small farmers that contributes to the total family income
and farming operations.
Evaluates and describes marketing channels utilized by small
farm operators and reports to State Director facts found.
Analyzes field program activity reports to determine trends
or detect weaknesses and recommends measures or prepares
materials to remedy conditions noted and informs State Director
of same.
Informs and advises the general public and special interest
groups about available agricultural and other rural credit
assistance.
Formulates the quality and level of available labor and the
timing of off-farm employment on the selection of farming
enterprises.
Prepares reports and submits to State Director on items such
as:
1. Recommend program changes or new programs which would
accomplish the
objective of saving the Black-owned farm.
2. Identify steps which could be taken to reduce the loss of
Black-owned farms
under existing FmHA and other USDA programs.
3. Compare the loss of Black farmers to the situation in other
states with sig-
nificant Black population and Black ownership of farms.
4. Investigate and analyze the farming operations of Black-owned
farms in Virginia.
Factor 1. Knowledge Required of the Position
Position requires a comprehensive knowledge of problems related to
farming practices in the rural areas. Must have or obtain a basic
knowledge of FmHA program objectives, regulations, and policies, and an
understanding of financial practices, tax laws, and legal structures,
and the state and local realty laws. Must have the ability to evaluate
and analyze techniques to effectively assess small farming operations.
Factor 2. Supervisory Controls
Incumbent works under the general supervision of the State
Director, working closely with other State Office program officials and
day-to-day supervision of the District Director. The employee is
assigned duties in terms of objectives, general ground rules, but must
plan and carry out specific duties on personal initiative. The broad
scope of duties requires an ability to determine the proper priority of
each of the tasks to be performed. Because of constant travel and type
of work to be done, supervision is extremely limited.
Factor 3. Guidelines
Guidelines in the form of FmHA Instruction and policy are available
(also assistance of District Director or other FmHA employees), but
considerable judgment is required in applying them to a variety of
financial entities--no two of which are comparable--involving loans for
farming. Follows National and State Office administration and
management instructions in assessing rural needs and operations and
regulating corrective procedures.
Factor 4. Complexity
Complexity of this position rests with developing program
objectives, and for exercising broad program evaluation. Extensive
coordination and joint planning contacts with other governmental
agencies and public groups to develop program activities are required.
Factor 5. Scope and Effect
Programs administered involve the physical and economic well being
of a substantial population of the small community and rural segment of
the State.
Factor 6. Personal Contacts
Contacts are with borrowers, prospective borrowers, attorneys,
representatives of other lending organizations, and with management
officials of Farmers Home Administration, etc.
Factor 7. Purpose of Contacts
Contacts are for the purpose of amassing data and/or explaining
program requirements; to assess rural needs, to report deficiencies or
problems encountered; and to ascertain or give information concerning
FmHA function.
Factor 8. Physical Demands
The work requires some physical exertion; walking over uneven,
rough, maybe rocky surfaces, but mostly work can be accomplished in an
office setting. No special physical demands are required to do the job.
Factor 9.
The work environment involves everyday risks or discomforts which
require normal safety precautions typical of such places as office,
meeting rooms, and residences or commercial vehicles. The office area
is adequately lighted, heated, and ventilated.
February 23, 1984
Dr. B.B. Archer,
Dean, School of Agriculture & Applied Sciences,
Virginia State University,
Petersburg, Virginia
Dear Dr. Archer:
I have been advised that you met with Mr. Herman Lundy, Farmer
Programs Specialist of my staff on Tuesday, February 7, 1984 to discuss
President Reagan's Executive Order #12320 instructing Federal Agencies
to increase the percentage share of program funds allocated to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. As a result of this
order, the administrator of our agency subsequently established the
visiting Professor's Program of which we are very much interested. We
highly appreciate your interest in this program and encourage your
school to participate. Mr. Lundy is currently working on the expected
major duties and responsibilities for this job position. As soon as
this is completed, we will be interested in employing on a temporary
part-time basis one of your professors.
Please continue to consider our program in search for a professor
with a strong agricultural background that could spend a few hours on a
weekly basis to serve us in an advisory capacity. Mr. Lundy will be
contacting you on a regular basis to carry out our employment goal.
If you have questions or comments concerning this, please feel free
to contact Herman directly at [Redacted].
Sincerley yours,
Roie M. Godsey,
State Director.
CC:
Dr. Willbert Greenfield
Mr. Steve Klink
Submission No. 4
United States Department of Agriculture
Settlement Agreement
Discrimination Complaint of John W. Boyd, Jr.
This settlement agreement is made by and between the complainant,
John W. Boyd, Jr., and the United States Department of Agriculture
(``USDA''). This agreement constitutes a full, complete, and final
settlement of all claims for relief in connection with the complaint of
racial discrimination submitted by the complainant on February 18,
1992, and USDA's final decision on such complaint dated October 11,
1996, (attached to this agreement)).
I. USDA agrees to:
1. Pay the complainant the sum of [Redacted] in compensatory
damages. A
check in this amount payable to the complainant and
Clarence N. Jenkins,
Jr., Esq., will be issued as soon as practicable but no
later than 60 days
after this agreement has been signed by all parties.
2. Pay any and all of John W. Boyd, Jr.'s unpaid outstanding debt
owed to the
Farm Service Agency, former Farmers Home Administration,
and the Rural
Housing Service. USDA, the Farm Service Agency, and Rural
Housing
Service, will forever discharge, hold harmless, and
indemnify John W. Boyd,
Jr. from any liability for such debt.
II. Complainant agrees to:
1. Accept the above payment of compensatory damages, and debt
forgiveness
as a full, final, and complete settlement of all claims
in connection with his
February 18, 1992, discrimination complaint and USDA's
final decision
dated October 11, 1996.
2. Waive and release any and all claims or complaints of any kind
arising out
of the events that were the subject of the complainant's
February 18, 1992,
discrimination complaint and USDA's final decision dated
October 11, 1996,
against USDA, the United States of America, and any other
agency of the
United States of America, or any officer, employee, or
agent of the United
States of America, in either his or her official or
individual capacity.
III. Both parties agree that the fact that this complaint was
resolved by this agreement may be disclosed by either party
to any person not a party. However, except as otherwise
required by law, terms of this agreement set out in
paragraphs I and II will not be disclosed by either party,
without the consent of the other party, to any person not a
party except as necessary for that person to perform his
official governmental duties.
Ira L. Hobbs, 5/20/97
Director, Office of Operations, Date
United States Department of Agriculture
John W. Boyd, Jr., 5/20/97
Complainant Date
Clarence N. Jenkins, Jr., 5/20/97
Attorney for the Complainant Date
Submission No. 5
United States Department of Agriculture
Office of Civil Rights
Statute of Limitations
Program Complaint Division
Complainant: John W. Boyd, Jr., [Redacted], Baskerville, VA,
[Redacted]
Representative: Darlene Smith, [Redacted]
County: Mecklenburg County, Virginia
Docket Number: 27
Basis: Race (Black) and Age (24)
Issue(s): Treatment and denial of loan
Agency(ies): Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Housing Service (RS)
Date of Complaint: April 20, 1990
Summary of Facts
Letter from John Boyd to Otis Daily, FSA District Director, dated
April 20, 1990 stated he was a 24 year old African-American male that
had been discriminated against by James Garnett, FSA County Supervisor.
Boyd stated that the previous week before the dated letter. Garnett
threw his applications for a home repair loan and farm ownership loan
(300 acres and nursery swine operation) into the trash can and told him
that was too much operation for a boy his age. Boyd also stated that
Garnett told him to apply for government subsidized housing in South
Hill, Virginia because it would be cheaper than making repairs to his
old house.
Ava Marshall, RHS employee in the Virginia State Office who
initially investigated Boyd's discrimination complaint made the
following statements via telephone on July 14, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.:
Marshall stated that Boyd had filed his complaint timely and had
continued to complain about discrimination by Garnett. Marshall stated
that Boyd filed a complaint and made mention of the fact that he had
been complaining with no result. Marshall stated Boyd had kept a copy
of the letter that he had given Daily pertaining to the way Garnett had
treated him. Marshall stated while conducting the investigation she
found out that Daily had the complaint that Boyd had filed, but failed
to forward the complaint to the state office. Marshall stated the
complaints were treated as one, not two complaints.
Boyd stated he had made numerous telephone calls to the Chief of
Programs Complaints Adjudication Division about his two complaints and
had not received any response (referenced from letter on file, dated
Sep1ember 16. 1996).
There were no copies of the 1990 loan request in the file and the
agencies were not able to provide any explanation (referenced from the
Background of the complainant).
Garnett stated he did not get paid to do outreach, he got paid to
make loans and that's was what be did. Garnett also stated that there
were not many minority farmers, because agriculture does not appeal to
them; and that they were mainly looking for a job with a pay check
every Friday (referenced from statement Garnett provided during the
investigation).
Four out of five Black farmers interviewed stated that the county
supervisor was biased to Blacks (referenced from interviews of Black
farmers during the investigation).
On February 18, 1993 the State Civil Right's Coordinator found that
the County Supervisor had a bias toward Blacks (referenced from the
Chronology of Events--John W. Boyd, Jr.).
Garnett was asked to accept an early retirement rather than be
disciplined for his failure to promote EO activities and the fact that
other similar discrimination cases had been discovered in the County
Office (referenced from the summary of file review).
The Farm Program Chief determined Boyd's case had not been properly
handled (referenced from Exhibit G of a loan review report conducted by
the Chief of Farm Program).
County Supervisor documented information pertaining to Boyd
obtaining a Carroll's Food Contract (referenced from a field visit
report conducted by the county supervisor).
Reference List *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the entries that are italicized were not included
in the submission received from Mr. Boyd. The document has reproduced
herein as received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Boyd, Jr.
Statute of Limitations
Docket Number 27
1 Letter from complainant, dated April 20, 1990 establishing
date of complaint
2 Letter from complainant, dated September 16, [1]996
inquiring about two complaints
3 Background of complaint
4 Statement of County Supervisor, Garnett
5 Interviews of Black farmers conducted during the
investigation
6 Chronology of Events--John W. Boyd, Jr.
7 Summary of file review
8 Exhibit G of a loan review report conducted by the Chief of
Farm Programs
9 Field visit report conducted by the county supervisor
X Denotes the applicable section of the referenced document.
Submission No. 6
February 27, 2019
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Attention: Deputy Assistant Secretary Naomi Earp
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Washington, DC
RE: Formal Complaint of Discrimination Based on African American Race
Dear Ms. Earp:
I am writing an official letter of complaint in response to the
failure of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to comply
with the terms of debt forgiveness as stated in my USDA Settlement
Agreement dated May 20, 1997 which was approved and signed by Ira
Hobbs, Director, Office of Operations, United States Department of
Agriculture; John W. Boyd, Jr., Complainant and Clarence Jenkins,
Attorney for the Complainant.
On February 25, 2019, I received an email from Mrs. Ruby L. Martin
at Hawthorne & Hawthorne Law Firm detailing numerous current USDA liens
filed against me and my farm property. She stated that all USDA liens
would need to be paid and removed prior to my March 22, 2019 closing
date to purchase a $3,000,000 farm in Mecklenburg County, VA. On
February 27, 2019, I visited the Mecklenburg County USDA Service Center
in Boydton, VA. My wife Kara D. Boyd and I met with Evan Harver in the
USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Loan Office as evidenced by my receipt
of service. Mr. Harver researched my farm loan files and in those files
he found six (6) Certificates of Satisfaction pertaining to USDA liens
that had been prepared but never signed, dated, notarized and/or filed
by USDA with the Clerk of Court, Mecklenburg County, Virginia. I
believe those certificates were prepared in 1997 in accordance to the
aforementioned USDA Settlement Agreement based upon the fact all the
certificates have the identical language as follows: ``AUTHORIZED FSA
OFFICIAL (Note Holder) ANNE J. RICKMAN, Agriculture Credit Manager'',
``Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by Anne J. Rickman
this ___ day of _______, 1997.'' and ``My commission expires: 5/31/
1998.'' In addition, the USDA failed to provide a farm in inventory as
stipulated in my USDA Statue of Limitations Agreement.
I believe that this is a clear case of retaliation, breach of
agreement and racial discrimination against an African American farmer
for the following reasons:
1. My racial discrimination complaint and case against the USDA was
one of the 1st in US History. At that time many of the
African American and other minority farmers' racial
discrimination cases were barred by the two (2) year statue
of limitations. Also during that time there was not
functioning USDA Office of Civil Rights. I advocated in
Congress for the position--Assistant Secretary Office of
Civil Rights. I worked to put those things in place.
2. I led the fight for African American Farmers as well as helped
with Native American, Women and Hispanic farmers'
complaints and cases of racial discrimination filed against
USDA.
3. On Dec. 8, 2010, President Obama signed into law a bill that I
authored paving the way for the largest civil rights
settlement in history for African Americans $1.25 Billion.
Now 22 years later (1997-2019), I have been notified of the liens
the USDA failed to remove as stipulated in Section II paragraph 2 of
the aforementioned USDA Settlement Agreement.
I am requesting an immediate investigation and speedy resolution in
this matter. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
John W. Boyd, Jr.
Submission No. 7
Submission No. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Boyd, Jr.,
Complainant
v. Program Complaint No.: FSA-19-8204
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
Agency
Final Agency Decision on Allegations of Noncompliance
I. Introduction
Pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-320), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
implementing regulation, Departmental Regulation (DR) 4330-003,\1\ the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) hereby
renders the following determination on the Complainant's allegation of
noncompliance with his Settlement Agreement (SA) dated November 19,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DR 4330-003, paragraphs 7(j) and 7(j)(2) states that OASCR is
responsible for monitoring implementation of SAs and ensuring
compliance with their terms and conditions. If the complainant believes
that an agency has failed to comply with the terms of the SA, the
complainant shall notify OASCR, in writing, of the alleged
noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should
have known of the alleged non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Issue Presented
Whether Farm Service Agency (FSA) officials violated the SA when
they failed to provide Complainant a farm in USDA inventory property
from July 18, 2018 to February 1, 2019.
III. Procedural History
Date of Settlement Agreement: November 19, 1999
Date(s) of Alleged Noncompliance: July 18, 2018-February 1, 2019
Date of Complaint: February 27, 2019
Date of Acceptance: April 15, 2019
Dates of Investigation: July 29, 2019-August 1, 2019
Date of Report of Investigation: October 9, 2019
IV. Statement of Facts
The USDA Rural Development/Farm Services Agency (USDA-RD/FSA)
resale web site provides current information about single-family homes,
multifamily homes, farms, and ranches for sale by the U.S. Federal
Government. The website was designed to provide information regarding
properties owned by the government for public sale. These previously
owned properties are for sale by public auction or other method
depending on the property. The properties are located throughout the
United States including our Commonwealths and Territories in the
Pacific and the Caribbean. After finding a USDA-RD/FSA home or farm
property of interest on the resale web site, individuals are to contact
their local RD or FSA servicing office to obtain the most current and
accurate information regarding the status of the home/farm property,
and to determine eligibility for potential program benefits. Depending
on individual's circumstances and the status of the property listed,
the method of bidding and ultimate purchase of property may vary.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information about USDA-RD/FSA properties, see: https:/
/properties.sc.egov.usda.gov/resales/public/home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complainant resides in and is a farmer in Mecklenburg County,
Virginia. Since 1984, Complainant has participated in FSA's Farm Loan
Programs and has been approved for and received farm ownership and
operating loans. A review of Complainant's complaint history shows, he
has filed several program discrimination complaints related to his FSA
loans over the years, which eventually resulted in two Settlement
Agreements (SA) which were executed on May 20, 1997, and November 19,
1999. (ROI, pg. 5)
On November 19, 1999, Complainant and USDA entered into a SA based
on all claims of Complainant's 1990 discrimination complaints.\3\ The
SA required USDA provide Complainant with priority consideration, on a
one-time basis for the purchase, lease, or other acquisition of
inventory property located in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The SA also
stated Complainant must exercise his right to such priority
consideration in writing and within 5 years of the date the SA was
signed. (ROI, pgs. 214-216)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Due to age, we do not have access to Complainant's complaints
filed in the 1990's against USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2018, Complainant emailed the Farm Loan Manager (FLM)
(race: White) in FSA's Siskiyou County, California office, requesting
additional information on a property listed on FSA's inventory property
website. (ROI, pg. 326)
On July 24, 2018, the FLM responded to Complainant's email inquiry
with a phone call. During the call, the FLM provided Complainant with
general information on the property in Lassen County, California and a
general outline of the sale process. Also, the FLM added Complainant's
name and email address to the distribution list to ensure he received
the notice of sale of property once it was published. (ROI, pgs. 325,
306-307)
On the same day, Complainant emailed the FLM requesting physical
address and name of previous owner for the California property he was
interested in. (ROI, pg. 324)
On July 27, 2018, the FLM responded to Complainant's email by
stating she did not have access to a physical address. The FLM
recommended Complainant contact the County Assessor. Also, the FLM
expressed she would try and find out information and let Complainant
know if she could locate the physical address. (ROI, pg. 324)
On February 26, 2019, Complainant visited the Mecklenburg County
FSA office and received assistance from the Farm Loan Officer (FLO) on
outstanding Farmers Home Administration liens on his properties. (ROI,
pgs. 239-240)
On February 27, 2019, Complainant filed a program discrimination
complaint against FSA.\4\ (ROI, pgs. 13-17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Complaint # 19-8204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11, 2019, Complainant emailed the FLM to see if she had
found any additional information regarding the property of interest.
(ROI, pg. 323)
On August 25, 2019, Complainant emailed the FLM again to see if she
had found any additional information regarding the property of
interest. (ROI, pg. 331)
On September 6, 2019, the FLM responded to Complainant's email by
informing him that property he was interested in was still in the FSA
inventory. According to the FLM, FSA was still working through the
steps to prepare the property for sale as a surplus property. (ROI, pg.
323)
V. Applicable Legal Standards
A settlement agreement is a contract, and its construction is a
question of law. See Lary v. U.S. Postal Serv., 472 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the formation, construction, and
enforceability of a settlement agreement are governed by contract law.
Carr v. Runyan, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, in order
for a complainant to prevail, he/she must show material noncompliance
with the terms of the settlement agreement. See Gilbert v. Dep't of
Justice, 334 F.3d 1065, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``A party breaches a
contract when it is in material noncompliance with the terms of the
contract.'')
``A breach is material when it relates to a matter of vital
importance, or goes to the essence of the contract.'' Thomas v. Dep't
of Housing & Urban Dev., 124 F.3d 1439, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
Restatement (2d) of Contracts 241 (1981) (A material breach is one
that will, or may, defeat the object or underlying purpose of the
contract.). A purely technical and immaterial breach of a contractual
obligation will generally be insufficient to warrant contract
rescission. See, e.g., Sahadi v. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank and
Trust Co. of Chicago, 706 F.2d 193, 196-198 & n. 2 (7th Cir. 1983)
Restatement (2d) of Contracts 231-60 (1981) (A minor breach will not
generally give rise to a cause of action on the entire contract).
A determination as to whether a breach is material ``is a
complicated question of fact, involving an inquiry into such matters as
whether the breach worked to defeat the bargained-for objective of the
parties or caused disproportionate prejudice to the nonbreaching party,
[and] whether custom and usage considers such a breach to be
material.'' Sahadi, 706 F.2d at 196. These factors, however, do not
detract from the fundamental materiality inquiry: whether the parties
would have entered into the contract without the particular provision
at issue. Id. at 714; see also Francorp, Inc. v. Siebert, 126 F. Supp.
2d 543, 547 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (``The materiality of a breach depends on
the `inherent justice of the matter,' and on whether the matter, in
respect to which the failure of performance occurs, is of such a nature
and of such importance that the contract would not have been made
without it.'') In cases involving allegations of breach of a settlement
agreement, the burden is always placed on the party alleging breach to
establish that a breach has occurred. Porter v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A54699 (December 20, 2005).
A breach of contract claim requires two components: (1) an
obligation or duty arising out of the contract and (2) factual
allegations sufficient to support the conclusion that there has been a
breach of the identified contractual duty. San Antonio Housing Auth. v.
United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 425, 470 (2019)[.]
VI. Findings and Conclusion
Priority Consideration for Inventory Property
On November 19, 1999, USDA and Complainant entered into a SA for
the purpose of resolving Complainant's program discrimination claims
through a mutually acceptable voluntary agreement. Per the SA, USDA
agreed to provide Complainant with priority consideration, on a one-
time basis for the purchase, lease, or other acquisition of inventory
property in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The SA required Complainant
to exercise this right to such priority consideration in writing and
within 5 years of the date of the signed SA.
Complainant asserts he searched FSA's property inventory website,
but the information available was always out of date. Also, Complainant
states he emailed FSA's Outreach Director and the point of contact for
FSA's inventory property. However, Complainant noted his emails were
never responded to in a timely manner. Complainant asserts he requested
an extension from USDA officials of the 5 year priority property
consideration stipulated in the SA. Complainant noted USDA's Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights advised him to continue his ongoing efforts
to request a farm out of the inventory and contact FSA. (ROI, pg. 103)
We note Complainant did not provide any specific details or evidence
regarding his efforts to exercise his right to priority consideration
for an FSA inventory property. Despite his assertions, Complainant's
current allegation does not support a finding of FSA's material
noncompliance with the terms of the SA.
According to the FLM, Complainant contacted her about a Lassen
County, California property listed in FSA's inventory website on July
18, 2018. On July 24, 2018, the FLM responded to Complainant by
providing him with general information about the property and an
outline of the sale process. In addition, the FLM emailed Complainant
maps of the property location and added him to FSA's distribution list
to ensure he received the Notice of Sale once published. On the same
day, Complainant sent a subsequent email requesting the physical
address of the property. On July 27, 2018, the FLM informed Complainant
she was unable to locate a specific address for property and referred
him to the County Assessor's office for additional information. The FLM
explained the property remained in FSA's inventory, and Complainant was
to be notified once a Notice of Sale was prepared and published. (ROI,
pgs. 118, 313, 323-324)
The Mecklenburg County FLO stated he had no knowledge of
Complainant's request for inventory property and was not aware of any
other FSA personnel who may have assisted Complainant with his request.
According to the FLO, the process for requesting or purchasing FSA
inventory property can be found in Part 21 of the FSA Handbook 5-FLP.
Additionally, the FLO indicated no real estate inventory property was
available between July 18, 2018 and February 2019 for the Mecklenburg
FSA Farm Loan Program office. (ROI, pgs. 242-243)
FSA Handbook 5-FLP Part 21 states when FSA acquires inventory
property and the authorized agency official confirms that the property
satisfies the applicable general policies, the authorized agency
official initiates the sale of the property. For most inventory
property, the authorized agency official must begin advertising the
property for sale within 15 calendar days of title acquisition. FSA
offers inventory property to beginning farmers or socially
disadvantaged farmers before considering sale of the property to the
general public.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information on the sale of FSA's inventory property,
see: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/5-flp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we agree Complainant was entitled to priority consideration
to USDA's property inventory, he did not utilize the benefit within the
timeframe and region covered by the SA. According to the SA,
Complainant was required to exercise his right to such priority
consideration in the Commonwealth of Virginia within 5 years of the
date the SA was signed. The SA between USDA and Complainant was signed
on November 19, 1999. As such, Complainant would have had until
November 19, 2004, to exercise his entitlement to priority
consideration. However, Complainant was seeking priority consideration
on July 18, 2018, well outside of the allotted timeframe set by the SA.
Complainant noted he attempted to obtain an extension of the 5 year
timeframe. However, nothing in the record shows the Agency approved his
extension request. Additionally, the SA stipulated Complainant would
have priority consideration for FSA properties in Virginia. The
property in question associated with the instant allegation of breach
of settlement was in California.
The compromise of any matter is valid and binding, not because it
is the settlement of a valid claim, but because it is the settlement of
a controversy. Weade v. Weade, 153 Va. 540, 150 S.E. 238 (1929) Here,
after the agreement was executed, the Agency was under no obligation to
enlarge the timeframes or geographic areas because Complainant did not
exercise his priority consideration as specified in the SA. Therefore,
we find there was no material breach of contract.
Conclusion
Based on our review of the record and the documentation submitted
by FSA and the Complainant, we conclude that the FSA complied with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
No person shall be subject to reprisal or harassment for filing a
discrimination complaint against USDA; participating in or contributing
to the identification, investigation, prosecution, or resolution of
civil rights violations by an agency of USDA or by a recipient of
Federal financial assistance from USDA; or otherwise aiding or
supporting the enforcement of civil rights laws, rules, regulations or
policies applicable to USDA programs.
Cinnamon L. Butler, 2/3/20
Director, Program Adjudication Division Date
Center for Civil Rights Enforcement
Submission No. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Boyd, Jr.,
Complainant
v. Program Complaint No.: FSA-19-8204
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
Agency
Final Agency Decision
I. Introduction
In accordance with 7 CFR Part 15d, this is the final determination
of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on this
complaint.
II. Issue Presented
Whether Farm Service Agency (FSA) officials discriminated against
Complainant on the bases of race (African American) and retaliation
(prior civil rights activity) when on February 25, 2019:
1. They informed Complainant that USDA liens remained on his
property; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note the accepted issue is misstated. The record reveals
Complainant discovered the alleged remaining FSA liens from a third-
party, not FSA officials.
2. They failed to forgive all Complainant's USDA farm debt; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Issue #2 was not originally a part of the issues established by
the complaint and/or OASCR's acceptance letter. However, due to an
email clarifying Complainant's claims, issue #2 has been added to the
instant discrimination complaint. (ROI, pg. 35-36)
3. From July 18, 2018 to February 1, 2019, they failed to provide
Complainant a farm in USDA inventory property as stipulated
in his settlement agreement.
III. Procedural History
Date of Alleged Discriminatory Act: February 25, 2019, July 18, 2018,
February 1, 2019
Date Complaint Filed: February 27, 2019
Date of Acceptance: April 15, 2019
Dates of Investigation: July 29, 2019-August 1, 2019
Date of Report of Investigation: October 9, 2019
IV. Statement of Facts
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency (FSA)
offers direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers to promote,
build, and sustain family farms for a thriving agricultural economy.
FSA offers a variety of loans to provide additional resources farmers
need to establish and maintain profitable farming operations. FSA's
Direct Loan Program is designed to help farmers start, purchase, or
expand their farming operation. From beginning farmers who have limited
financial history to qualify for commercial credit to farmers who have
suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters, FSA's Farm
Ownership Loans may be used to purchase a farm, enlarge an existing
farm, construct new farm buildings and/or improve structures, pay
closing costs, and promote soil and water conservation and
protection.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more information on FSA's Farm Loan Programs, see: https://
www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/farm-
loans-overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complainant resides and farms in Mecklenburg County, VA. Beginning
in 1984, Complainant has participated in FSA's Farm Loan programs.
During this period, Complainant was approved for and received several
farm ownership and operating loans. In reviewing Complainant's
complaint history, it shows he has filed numerous program complaints
related to his FSA loans over the years, which eventually resulted in a
finding of discrimination. As a result, Settlement Agreements (SAs)
were executed on May 20, 1997, and November 19, 1999.\4\ Complainant
also participated in the Black Farmers class action lawsuit, otherwise
known as Pigford.\5\ The 1997 SA ordered forgiveness of all
Complainant's FSA loan debt. Complainant thus currently does not have
any outstanding USDA farm loan program debt. The 1999 SA also ordered
Complainant be provided priority consideration in obtaining FSA farm
inventory property. (ROI, pgs. 5, 31-32, 214-216)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 1997 SA was based on a discrimination complaint submitted
by Complainant on February 18, 1992 and USDA's related Final Agency
Decision issued on October 11, 1996. The 1999 SA applied to all of
Complainant's 1990 discrimination complaints submitted to USDA. (ROI,
pgs. 31-32, 214-216)
\5\ African American farmers successfully sued the USDA alleging
years of systematic discrimination in administering farm programs in
violation of the Equal Opportunity Act (ECOA). See Pigford v. Glickman,
185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999), aff'd, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 1997, a Farm Loan Manager (FLM #1) (race: White) sent
Complainant's attorney six Certificates of Satisfaction and Promissory
Notes for release. Additionally, FSA forwarded documentation to
Complainant's attorney which included a Termination Statement for the
release of the financing statements that were on record with the
Mecklenburg Clerk's Office. (ROI, pgs. 128, 131-179)
On July 18, 2018, Complainant emailed FLM #2 (race: White)
requesting additional information on specific property listed on FSA's
inventory property website. (ROI, pgs. 325-326)
On July 24, 2018, FLM #2 responded to Complainant's email inquiry
with a phone call. During the call, FLM #2 provided Complainant with
general information on the property he was interested in and a general
outline of the sale process. Also, FLM #2 added Complainant's name and
email address to the distribution list to ensure he received the notice
of sale of the property once it was published. (ROI, pgs. 325, 306-307)
On the same day, Complainant emailed FLM #2 requesting the physical
address and name of the previous owner for the subject property. (ROI,
pg. 324)
On July 27, 2018, FLM #2 responded to Complainant's email by
stating she did not have access to the physical address. FLM #2
recommended Complainant contact the County Assessor. Additionally, FLM
#2 expressed she would attempt to locate the address and let
Complainant know the results. (ROI, pg. 324)
In February 2019, Complainant met with a closing company to make
final preparation for the purchase of a property.\6\ During the
meeting, the closing company performed a title search and found
outstanding liens remained on Complainant's farm. As a result of the
outstanding liens, Complainant was not able to immediately secure the
loan he needed to purchase the property at that time. (ROI, pgs. 97-98)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We note this was not the initial FSA property in which the
Complainant previously inquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2019, Complainant called and visited the
Mecklenburg County FSA office seeking assistance with outstanding
Farmers Home Administration liens presumed to be on his property.
During the visit, the Farm Loan Officer (FLO) (race: White) informed
Complainant he had located copies of satisfaction documents and could
reissue them since they were not filed after being provided to
Complainant's attorney. Additionally, the FLO informed Complainant the
documents would need to be signed by the Farm Loan Manager and then
notarized. The FLO informed Complainant that the documents could be
completed and sent to the closing company within 2 days. (ROI, pgs.
239-240)
On the same day, Complainant emailed the FLO requesting copies of
the promissory notes associated with the satisfaction of deeds of trust
for his properties. (ROI, pg. 240)
On February 27, 2019, Complainant filed a complaint with the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). (ROI, pgs. 13-17)
On March 11, 2019, Complainant emailed FLM #2 to see if she had
found anyadditional information on the farm of interest. (ROI, pg. 323)
On the same day, Complainant emailed FSA's Riverside-San Diego
County, California County Executive Director (CED) requesting
additional information on a property in FSA's inventory and the next
steps in the process. (ROI, pg. 121)
On April 2, 2019, the CED responded to Complainant's email and
referred him to two additional FSA contacts for details on the
property. (ROI, pg. 120)
On September 6, 2019, FLM #2 responded to Complainant's email by
informing him that the property of interest was still in the FSA
inventory. According to FLM #2, FSA was still working through the steps
to prepare the property for sale as a surplus property. (ROI, pg. 323)
V. Applicable Legal Standards
Discrimination Based on Membership in a Protected Class in Programs
Conducted by USDA
USDA regulation 7 CFR 15d.3(a) provides:
No agency, officer, or employee of the United States
Department of Agriculture shall, on the ground of race, color,
religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, familial
status, sexual orientation, or disability, or because all of
part of an individual's income is derived from any public
assistance program, exclude from participation in, deny the
benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the
United States under any program or activity conducted by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
Reprisal--7 CFR 15d.3(b)
USDA regulation 7 CFR 15d.3(b) prohibits discrimination on
the basis of retaliation in any program or activity conducted
by USDA. It is the policy of USDA to follow the framework
provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
determine a prima facie case of retaliation.
Dismissal
USDA will close a complaint under the following circumstances:
a. Voluntary withdrawal;
b. Settlement or voluntary resolution;
c. Lack of jurisdiction;
d. Failure to state a claim;
e. Failure to pursue;
f. Failure to file timely;
g. Filing in court on the same or essentially similar claims;
h. Lack of any further remedies;
i. Any other authority provided in law;
j. Failure to seek remedy available under the statues, regulation,
or court decision;
k. Continuation of a pattern of complaints previously filed by the
complainant, or someone other than the complainant, that
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights or a
court of competent jurisdiction already have found to be
without merit;
l. Dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed
complaint.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Departmental Regulation 4330-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #2--Failure to State a Claim
A dismissal for failure to state a claim is intended to address a
dispositive issue of law. Under this procedural disposition, the trier-
of-fact does not assess the merit or truthfulness of the allegations or
the legal theories advanced by Complainant. Rather, the trier-of-fact
assumes that all facts advanced by Complainant are true. If, under this
assumption, it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set
of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations, the
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.
Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.)
In issue #2, Complainant alleges FSA officials discriminated
against him based on race, from July 18, 2018 to February 1, 2019, when
they failed to provide Complainant a farm from FSA's inventory
property, as stipulated in the terms of the November 19, 1999 SA. We
find Complainant fails to state a claim because issue #2 is concerned
solely with what he perceived as FSA's failure to satisfy the terms of
the SA--not a new adverse action based on race. The SA stipulated
Complainant be allowed priority consideration for obtaining an FSA farm
inventory property. Even though this issue will be reviewed under a
separate breach of SA analysis, we note the terms of the SA established
a 5 year timeframe for providing priority consideration. The period in
which Complainant alleges issue #2 occurred is 15 years after the terms
of the SA expired.
Furthermore, Complainant does not articulate how his race related
to his inability to obtain FSA inventory property. According to the
record, at the time the instant complaint was investigated, the
property at issue remained in FSA's inventory property and was still
being prepared for the sale process. As a result, there was not an
opportunity for Complainant to purchase property. Complainant does not
allege that the property was unreasonably delayed for sale due to
discriminatory animus or that other similarly situated buyers of a
different protected class were given priority, notice, or more
favorable treatment. Therefore, this issue is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Requirement that
pleading contain a short or plain statement of claim showing the
pleader is entitled to relief does not require detailed factual
allegations but demands more than unadorned the defendant unlawfully
harmed me accusation.) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556, U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)[.]
VI. Discussion and Analysis
A. Disparate Treatment (Race)
In evaluating a claim of disparate treatment based on membership in
a protected class, it is USDA policy to use the shifting analytic
framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The Court has defined disparate
treatment as situations where an Agency ``simply treats some people
less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex,
or other protected characteristic.'' See International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 358, 335, n. 15 (1977). Applying the
McDonnell Douglas principles, the investigating agency must first
determine if a complainant can raise an inference of discrimination by
establishing a prima facie case. The elements of a prima facie case may
vary depending on the facts of the complaint, but often include the
following:
(1) Complainant is a member of a protected class;
(2) Complainant applied for and was eligible to receive the benefit
sought;
(3) Despite Complainant's eligibility, he/she was rejected, referred
elsewhere, or otherwise treated differently; and
(4) The Agency/Respondent accepted or treated more favorably
similarly situated applicants who were not members of the
protected class or classes.
See Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001);
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802.
Once a complainant has established a prima facie case for
discrimination, a rebuttable presumption exists that discrimination has
occurred, the burden shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for its action(s). See Texas Dept. of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). Once the Agency
has satisfactorily articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason
for its actions, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove,
that the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for
discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas at 804-05. At all times,
complainant retains the burden of persuasion that unlawful
discrimination has occurred. See Burdine at 256.
In disparate treatment cases, the established order of analysis
requires a complainant establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
However, determining the existence of a prima facie case need not be
followed in all cases. Where the Agency has articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the action at issue, the factual inquiry
can proceed directly to the ultimate issue whether Complainant has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination motivated
the Agency's actions. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v.
Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983). Here, we will assume, without
finding, for purposes of analysis, that Complainant established a prima
facie case of disparate treatment based on race.
Accordingly, the burden shifts to the Agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the actions grieved by
Complainant.
B. Agency's Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons
The only inquiry to determine whether or not the Agency has
produced evidence to sufficiently articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason is whether the Agency's evidence has frame[d]
the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the plaintiff will
have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.'' * See Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 255-56 (1981). As
described below, we find that FSA has articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: there is no corresponding open quote mark (``) for
this quotation. It has been reproduced herein as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLM #1 stated FSA took proper steps to remove the liens. FLM #1
asserted she, along with her staff, prepared all the necessary
documents to remove Complainant's FSA liens. Then, officials sent the
Certificates of Satisfaction and the Promissory Notes via certified
mail to Complainant's attorney to have FSA liens removed from the
record. (ROI, pgs. 231, 234)
According to the FLM #1, USDA officials did not always go to the
County Clerk's Office to file or release liens. FLM #1 asserted when
borrower's loans were closed by attorneys, USDA would send the lien to
the attorney to file in the County Clerk's Office. FLM #1 further
explained when Complainant received his USDA loan to purchase the farm,
the attorney who closed the loan filed the USDA lien in the County
Clerk's Office. (ROI, pg. 234)
We find the above is sufficient and the Agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Therefore, the
burden now shifts to the Complainant to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence that these reasons are a mere pretext for unlawful
discrimination.
C. Pretext
As the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions, to prevail, the complainant must now prove, but a
preponderance of the evidence, why these proffered reasons are untrue
or a more pretext for unlawful discrimination. Burdine at 253. The
complainant can ``succeed in this either directly by persuading the
trier of facts that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the
agency or indirectly by showing that the agency's proffered explanation
is unworthy of credence.'' Burdine 256. A complainant can demonstrate
pretext by exposing such weakness, implausibility, inconsistencies,
incoherencies, contradictions'' ** in the Agency's reasoning that a
fact finder could find the Agency's articulated explanation unworthy of
credence. See Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc. 120 F.3d 205,209 (10th
Cir.1997)[.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Editor's note: there is no corresponding open quote mark (``)
for this quotation. It has been reproduced herein as submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complainant alleges FSA officials failed to forgive all of his USDA
farm debt. However, we are not persuaded by Complainant's assertions,
as he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
discriminatory animus motivated or caused the alleged adverse action.
It is reasonable to assume that if FSA had not forgiven all of
Complainant's farm loan debt as indicated in the SA, FSA would have
made attempts to collect the debt from Complainant at some interval
over the course of 20 years. Under normal processes, delinquent
borrowers receive various notifications (i.e., notice of intent to
accelerate, notice of foreclosure) and demands for payment when they
are delinquent on their loans. However, USDA's last contact with
Complainant regarding the subject loans was on July 17, 1997, when FSA
sent Complainant's attorney the Certificates of Satisfaction and the
Promissory Notes to release USDA's liens.
Although 20 years passed before Complainant discovered any issues
associated with the documentation of the debt forgiveness, the 1997 SA
clearly established USDA would forever discharge, hold harmless, and
indemnify Complainant from any liability for his debt at that time.
(ROI, pgs. 31, 131) We find Complainant's debt had been forgiven by
USDA, and he has not provided any evidence which demonstrates FSA did
not forgive his debt based on his race.
Additionally, the record evidence confirms that Agency officials
supplied Complainant's attorney with the requisite documentation to
release USDA liens on Complainant's properties after loans where
satisfied. The trier of fact is unpersuaded that FLM #1 had intentions
of not releasing liens based upon race. Rather, it was Complainant's
responsibility to ensure his representative had filed the appropriate
paperwork with the County Clerk's Office. Contrary to Complainant's
assertions, FLM #1's response suggests that she took meaningful steps
to ensure Complainant's attorney received the documentation needed to
release liens from public record. Complainant did not provide any
evidence to substantiate claim of discrimination by FSA officials.
Absent any operative facts that would lend credence to Complainant's
allegations, his mere conjecture is insufficient to demonstrate
pretext. Reed v. Amax Coal Co., 971 F.2d 1295, 1299 (7th Cir. 1992)
(plaintiff cannot make showing of discrimination through bare
allegations). Miller v. Auto. Club of KM, Inc., 420 F.3d 1098 (10th
Cir. 2005) (recognizing unsupported suspicions are insufficient to
establish discrimination).
Retaliation
To establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, a
plaintiff must prove that:
(1) Complainant engaged in a protected activity;
(2) Agency had knowledge of the protected activity;
(3) Complainant subsequently suffered an adverse action; and
(4) But for the prior protected activity, the adverse action would
not have occurred. University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013)[.]
For the first prong, Complainant must show he engaged in prior
protected activity. The record shows Complainant filed several civil
rights complaints regarding his FSA farm loans. Complainant satisfies
prong #1. (ROI, pg. 5)
For the second prong, the record sufficiently establishes FSA
officials had knowledge of Complainant's prior civil rights activities.
Therefore, Complainant meets the requirements of prong #2.
Regarding the third prong, Complainant must show he suffered an
adverse action.\8\ Complainant claims he was retaliated against by FSA
officials when they failed to remove liens on his farms. In February
2019, Complainant attempted to purchase a farm. The closing company
performed a title search on Complainant's properties and informed him
that FSA liens remained on his farms. As a result, Complainant contends
he had to negotiate an extension agreement for an additional 30 days to
secure the prospective loan and purchase the property. The extension
agreement required Complainant to deposit an additional $25,000 to his
original deposit of $50,000. As such, Complainant meets the
requirements of prong #3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the context of a retaliation claim, an action is ``adverse''
if it would dissuade a reasonable person from making or supporting a
charge of discrimination. See Burlington N & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,
548 U.S. 53, 54 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for prong #4, Complainant must show the adverse action
suffered would not have taken place if it were not for his prior
protected civil rights activities. The record shows in accordance with
the May 20, 1997 SA, all of Complainant's debt owed to the Agency was
forgiven. However, to a reasonable person, the record does not support
an inference that the recordation of FSA liens on Complainant's farms
in 2019 was caused by the negotiated SA from 1997.
It is unclear to the trier of fact who had the ultimate
responsibility of filing the appropriate paperwork regarding FSA liens
on Complainant's farms to the Mecklenburg Clerk's Office. The available
records show delivery of certified mail to Complainant's attorney
containing six Certificates of Satisfaction and Promissory Notes for
the release of FSA liens. (ROI, pg. 131). Under the common law of
agency, the signature of a disclosed, authorized agent has the same
legal force as the signature of his principal.
We acknowledge it was a financial burden for Complainant to provide
additional funding to secure loan because FSA liens remained
erroneously recorded on his land though the obligation to pay was
extinguished. However, the Agency's related actions regarding
Complainant, i.e., discharge of debt, not sending notices of debt owed,
and immediate assistance when the recording error was discovered,
weighs against the perception of wrongdoing, negligence, or retaliatory
motives on the Agency's part. Complainant and/or his attorney bore some
responsibility to conduct due diligence and ensure the liens were
released with the Mecklenburg County Clerk's Office. This inaction
resulted in Complainant having to provide additional funding to secure
the prospective loan. Considering the above, we conclude Complainant
does not meet the requirements of prong #4.
To establish retaliation based on temporal proximity, Complainant
would have to demonstrate the adverse action was followed closely after
his protected activity. If we construe his prior protected activity in
the light most favorable to Complainant, his protected activities
occurred on May 20, 1997 and November 19, 1999 when the SAs were
executed. However, Complainant did not discover that liens remained on
his property until February 2019. Here, almost 20 years elapsed between
the last protected activity (November 19, 1999) and the alleged adverse
action (February 2019). In general, a complainant can demonstrate a
causal connection using temporal proximity alone when the separation
between the Agency's knowledge of the protected activity and the
adverse action are very close. Twenty years is a substantial amount of
time to show a correlation between protected activity and adverse
action. Additionally, there have been no new allegations of retaliation
regarding these loans since the November 19, 1999 SA was executed.
Complainant has not offered any other evidence that would establish
temporal proximity in his claim of retaliation. See Nguyen v. City of
Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that temporal
proximity alone may be insufficient to raise an inference of
retaliation in the absence of other evidence of causation).
We find Complainant has not established a prima facie case of
retaliation.
VII. Conclusion
After careful review, and for the reasons set forth previously,
USDA finds the record does not support a finding of discrimination
based on retaliation.
No person shall be subject to reprisal or harassment for filing a
discrimination complaint against USDA; participating in or contributing
to the identification, investigation, prosecution, or resolution of
civil rights violations by an agency of USDA or by a recipient of
Federal financial assistance from USDA; or otherwise aiding or
supporting the enforcement of civil rights laws, rules, regulations or
policies applicable to USDA programs.
Cinnamon L. Butler, 2/3/20
Director, Program Adjudication Division Date
Center for Civil Rights Enforcement
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Complaint of Program Discrimination
Complainant: John W. Boyd, Jr.
Complaint No.: FSA-19-8204
Agency: Farm Service Agency
Certificate of Service
I certify that the document listed was sent on this date by certified
mail (unless otherwise specified) to:
Complainant: John W. Boyd, Jr.
[Redacted]
[Redacted], Virginia 23915
Agency Head: Richard Fordyce (interoffice mail)
Administrator
Farm Service Agency
Room 3096S, South Building
Agency Liaison: Emily Su (interoffice mail)
Director, Civil Rights
Farm Production and Conservation
PP III, 12th floor
Certified by: Date
7012 3460 0003 3832 6288
The Chairman. Thank you so much, Mr. Boyd, for your
excellent testimony.
And next, we have Mr. Blanding. Please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIUS BLANDING, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES/LAND ASSISTANCE
FUND, EAST POINT, GA
Mr. Blanding. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice
Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee. My
name is Cornelius Blanding, and I am the Executive Director of
the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, a
54 year old cooperative association of Black farmers,
landowners, and cooperatives from all across the South.
Founded directly out of the civil rights movement in 1967,
the Federation is the oldest and largest Black farmer-owned and
-serving institution in the country. It is also the only
cooperatively-owned organization of Black farmers, landowners,
and cooperatives focusing primarily on Black land loss and the
use of cooperatives as a tool to increase income and build
wealth in the South, where 80 percent of all Black farmers are
located.
I am honored to be before this Committee today, testifying
on the realities, struggles, and perseverance of Black farmers
and landowners in the U.S. South. I have submitted my full
statement to the Committee, which I ask to be made part of the
hearing record.
As part of my brief opening statement, I would like to
thank this Committee again for this opportunity to testify
before as part of this historic hearing on Black farmers. I
have served the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and Black
Farmers for the past 24 years, and as the executive of the
Federation for the past 6 years.
We, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, based on a
study we did 41 years ago in 1980, entitled, The Impact of Heir
Property on Black Rural Land Tenure in the Southeastern Region
of the United States, that was commissioned by Congress and
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, and
based on over 50 years of work, we estimate that approximately
60 percent of all Black-owned land is heirs property--land that
lacks a clear title and that the landowner dies without a will
or estate plan, and is passed down informally to the heirs of
deceased landowners. It is the reason that I and thousands of
others in the Black community are not Black landowners or still
farming today.
So, you see, this work is personal for me, just like it is
for other folks testifying on this hearing today, like it is
for thousands of Black farmers and advocates across this
country. Heirs property is a civil rights issue. All the
citizens of our country should have access to government
services, but because of heirs property, many don't, and for
decades Black farmers haven't, and this has resulted in Black
land loss. These are all things that could have been addressed
with good and reasonable legislation, including the $1.9
trillion American Rescue Plan of 2021 recently passed by the
Senate and the House, and signed into law by the President.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I am
here to testify on the realities, struggles, and perseverance
of Black farmers and landowners. The reality is that Black
farmers are going out of business and lost the highest
percentage of land than any other group in this country over
the past century.
In 1910, there were 218,000 Black farmers owning roughly 15
million acres of land. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in
1992, there were only 18,000 Black farmers owning 2.3 million
acres of land. That is over a 90 percent loss of Black farmers,
as well as almost a 90 percent loss of Black-owned land.
Another reality is that the majority of Black farmers get
their credit from USDA's Farm Service Agency, the lender of
last resort, which they are expected to graduate out of that
system in 7 years, and after that, they are supposed to qualify
for credit in the traditional market. However, that date never
comes for most Black farmers. Instead, they are relegated to
predatory-style lenders at best, and farming out of their
pockets at worst. No business, especially farming, can survive
in this reality. The reality is also that Black farmers have
historically been discriminated against in various ways--
including at USDA, as shown in the historic lawsuit, Pigford v.
Glickman. These realities have led to the struggles of Black
farmers, the struggles to hold on to land for generations
because of unsecure or cloudy titles and discrimination. The
realities of Black farmers have also led to the struggle to
successfully operate farms in a sector where they buy in the
retail market and sell in the wholesale market, primarily
because of lack of scale. Eighty percent of Black farmers
operate on 100 acres or less.
These realities have also led to the struggles to access
enough fair and equitable credit for farmers to grow their
business and become part-time--beyond part-time subsistence
farms. However, these struggles and realities have forced Black
farmers and landowners to be some of the most resilient people
in their communities and in this country. Black farmers have
persevered through the difficult days of sharecropping and the
long nights of racism and discrimination, and continue to
persevere in spite of the issues of heirs property, the lack of
access to fair and equitable credit, and they continue to be on
the front lines of feeding families, anchoring rural
communities, and protecting our environment, regardless of
these realities and struggles.
The Black farmer's story is of perseverance, and it is
about time this story is told. It is about time for a hearing
such as this. It is about time for our country to support those
that have given so much but receive so little in exchange.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate the Black farmer's
story is one of struggle and perseverance, and so I end with
that, Mr. Chairman, but our air, our water, our soil, and our
lives depend on Black farmers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee for
this opportunity to appear before you today. I stand ready for
any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blanding follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cornelius Blanding, Executive Director,
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, East Point,
GA
Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, Mr. Ranking Member,
and Members of the Committee.
My name is Cornelius Blanding and I'm the Executive Director of the
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, a 54 year old
cooperative association of Black farmers, landowners and cooperatives
from all across the South.
Founded directly out of the civil rights movement in 1967, the
Federation is the oldest and largest Black farmer owned and serving
institution in the country. It is also the only cooperatively owned
organization of Black farmers, landowners and cooperatives focusing
primarily on Black land loss and the use of cooperatives as a tool to
increase income and build wealth in the South, where 80% of all Black
farmers are located.
I am honored to be before this Committee today, testifying on the
realities, struggles and perseverance of Black farmers & landowners in
the U.S. South. I have submitted my full statement to the Committee,
which I ask to be made part of the hearing record.
As part of my brief opening statement, I would like to thank this
Committee for this opportunity to testify as part of this historical
hearing on Black farmers.
I am not a Black farmer nor do I pretend to speak on behalf of all
Black farmers. I am merely a servant of the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives as well as the Black farmer and cooperative movements;
thus I testify on behalf of our membership, Board of Directors and all
those who came before me. It is my hope that my testimony is a
reflection and adequate representation of all those giants who couldn't
be here today, but are the reasons that I am here.
I have served the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and Black
farmers for the past 24 years and as the Executive Director of the
Federation for the past 6 years.
I am a son of the South. I was born and raised in the South. I was
educated in the South. I live and work in the South and I am raising my
family in the South.
I am also a product of public housing and public assistance in
Montgomery, Alabama, the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement. I was
raised by a single mother in public housing and on public assistance. A
single mother who was also one of seven heirs to over 40 acres of land
in rural Lowndes County, Alabama.
My family was targeted by an unscrupulous lawyer and one of the
heirs was bought out for pennies on the dollar, which resulted in a
forced partition sale. Unfortunately, my story is not unique. I am part
of a common story in the Black community.
We, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives--based on a study we
did 41 years ago in 1980, entitled ``The Impact of Heir Property on
Black Rural Land Tenure in the Southeastern Region of the United
States'' that was commissioned by Congress and funded by USDA . . . .
and based on over 50 years of work--estimate that approximately 60% of
all Black owned land is heirs' property; land that lacks a clear
title--in that the landowner dies without a will or estate plan and the
land is informally passed down to the heirs of the deceased land owner.
With this cloudy or unclear title, called heirs property, the heirs
or landowners lack the ability to access USDA programs, resources or
credit; thus putting the land in a vulnerable position. In fact, heirs'
property is one the major reasons for Black land loss.
It is the reason my mother and her siblings lost 40 acres of land
in rural Lowndes County, Alabama, and it is part of the reason my
mother was forced to raise me, my brother and sister in public housing
on public assistance about 30 miles east in the more urban city of
Montgomery, Alabama.
It is the reason that I and thousands of others in the Black
community are not Black landowners or still farming today. So you see,
this work is personal for me, just like it is for the other folks
testifying here today; and like it is for thousands of Black farmers
and advocates across this country.
Heirs' property is a Civil Rights issue. All of the citizens of our
country should have access to government services; but because of
heirs' property, many don't. For decades, Black farmers haven't . . .
and this has resulted in Black Land Loss. The other major reasons for
Back Land Loss are discrimination and access to fair & equitable
credit.
These are all things that could have been addressed with good and
reasonable legislation. These are things that are just now starting to
be addressed with the introduction of the Justice for Black Farmers
Act, the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, the Reconciliation
Bill passed by this Committee and the $1.9 Trillion American Rescue
Plan recently passed by the Senate and the House; and signed into law
by the President.
We applaud Senators Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, Smith, Leahy,
Warnock, Lujan and Stabenow. We applaud the House Agriculture Committee
and its leadership. We applaud the House and Senate for getting this
historical legislation passed. We applaud the Administration for its
vision and USDA leadership for its support. We also applaud the many
foot soldiers out there whom have tilled the soil, advocated for these
issues, followed the stories, researched and wrote legislation as well
as all those that dreamed of and struggled for this day to come.
But Black farmers are not out of the woods yet. It is not time for
celebration just yet. This is not the beginning of the story of Black
farmers nor is it the end. It is merely one of the many chapters of
Black farmers & landowners; one of the many chapters of our rural
communities; of urban migration and of our nation.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I am here to
testify on the realities, struggles and perseverance of Black Farmers &
Landowners.
The reality is that Black farmers have gone out of business and
lost the highest percentage of land than any other group in this
country over the past century.
In 1910, there were 218,000 Black farmers owning roughly 15 million
acres of land. According to the U.S. Census; in 1992, there were only
18,000 Black farmers owning 2.3 million acres of land. That's over a
90% loss of Black farmers as well as almost a 90% loss of land.
Another reality is that the majority of Black farmers get their
credit from USDA's Farm Service Agency--the lender of last resort. This
in itself is risky because farmers are expected to graduate out of the
system in 7 years. After that, they are supposed to qualify for credit
in the traditional market; however that date never comes for most Black
farmers. Instead they are relegated to predatory style lenders at best
and farming out of their pockets at worst. No business--especially
farming--can survive in this reality. Credit is the life line of any
business and is crucial in farming.
The reality is also that Black farmers have historically been
discriminated against in various ways--including at USDA--as shown in
the historical Black farmer lawsuit (Pigford 1 and Pigford 2) . . . .
Discriminated against at FSA, the lender of last resort. Thus, the
Black farmers' reality is bleak even as it relates to credit.
These realities have led to the struggles of Black farmers. The
struggle to hold onto land for generations because of unsecure or
cloudy titles . . . when the problem of heirs property could be solved
with some simple steps, such as uniform heirs' property legislation;
adequate funding for the existing heirs' property relending program
that was approved as part of the 2018 Farm Bill; and targeted resources
for awareness, education and direct legal & technical assistance to
heirs' property landowners.
The realities of Black farmers have also led to the struggle to
successfully operate their farm business in a sector where they buy in
a retail market, but sell in a wholesale market--primarily because of
their lack of scale. 75-80% of Black farmers operate on 100 acres or
less and primarily grow perishable products. A reality that begs for
cooperative solutions that aggregate producers; and which could be
addressed with more resources for cooperative developmentvia programs
throughout all of USDA.
And the realities of Black farmers have led to the struggle to
access enough fair & equitable credit to grow their farms and
businesses beyond part-time and/or subsistence farms. And this could
readily be addressed with the creation of a cooperatively owned Black
Farmer Financial Institution, owned and controlled by Black farmers.
However, these struggles and these realities have forced Black
farmers and landowners to be some of the most resilient people in their
communities and in this country.
Black farmers and landowners have persevered through the difficult
days of share-cropping and the long nights of racism and
discrimination. They continue to persevere in spite of the issues of
heirs' property and the lack of access to fair & equitable credit.
Black farmers and landowners continue to be on the front lines of
feeding families, anchoring rural communities and protecting our
environment regardless of their realities and struggles.
The Black farmer story is a story of perseverance. It is about time
for this story to be told. It is about time for this kind of hearing.
It is about time for our country to support those that have given so
much, but received so little in exchange.
The Black farmer story is the American story. The realities &
struggles of Black farmers are woven into the fabric of this country.
Black farmers are a part of and vital to our food system, the
environment and our nation. But far too often Black farmers are losing
their land.
As my late predecessor and mentor, Mr. Ralph Paige, was quoted in a
New York Times article in 2018, ``when a Black farmer loses his land,
it's our community losing a piece of this country.'' Now, I would take
that a step further and say, ``it is also this country losing a piece
of our community . . . and thus a part of itself.''
Discrimination and land loss is all to prevalent in the lives of
Black farmers and the Black community, which makes it difficult for
many to see themselves in this great nation and as part of the solution
to many of its challenges.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I must reiterate that the Black farmer
story is one of struggle and perseverance. A reality of land loss,
discrimination, and lack of access to credit and resources . . . And
yet, a reality of feeding families, anchoring communities and
protecting our environment.
The solutions to the challenges of our nation rest in the hands of
our government, our organizations and corporations, as well as our
citizens--including and especially our farmers & landowners; and this
must include Black farmers & landowners.
But we must first make them whole, in order for them to be the most
effective contributors that they can be.
Our air, our water, our soils and our lives depend on it!
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today during this most historic
hearing on Black farmers. I stand ready to answer any questions you
might have.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. I appreciate your
excellent testimony.
Mr. Haynie, please begin now.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP J. HAYNIE III, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BLACK
GROWERS COUNCIL, BURGESS, VA
Mr. Haynie. Mr. Chairman, Secretary Vilsack, Members of the
Committee, staff of the Committee, and to the many others that
have worked tirelessly in making this hearing possible, I would
like to say thank you. Thank you on behalf of the Black farmers
and landowners who have been asking, praying, and waiting so
long for relief. I would also like to say thank you on behalf
of the Black farmers who have passed on without personally
being able to witness this day.
Mr. Chairman, I come before you today on behalf of the
National Black Growers Council, an organization that consists
of multi-generational farmers who advocate for the interest of
Black farmers in their local communities, in their states, and
to the Federal Government. An organization whose mission is to
improve the efficiency, productivity, and sustainability of
Black row crop farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all know the statistics that two
percent of the U.S. population of farmers, and that Black
farmers represent less than two percent of the entire 100
percent of farmers in the United States. What I would like the
Committee to truly recognize is that Black row crop farmers
represent less than eight percent of the entire Black farm
population. Mr. Chairman, Black farmers that grow corn, cotton,
soybeans, peanuts, and rice are on the verge of extinction. Mr.
Chairman, it is imperative that we support the remaining Black
farmers that exist. It is imperative that we address the
disparities and inequities that exist between Black farmers and
their White neighbors, and it is imperative that we put
programs in place that remove the economic knee that is on the
neck of a lot of Black farmers and landowners.
As we at the National Black Growers Council have said
before, land is a farmer's most valuable and productive asset.
As you canvass the country, you will often find Black farmers
on non-irrigated land trying to compete with their White farmer
neighbors who have used USDA programs to put irrigation on
their land. You will also find Black farmers who have not been
able to participate in land leveling and drainage, and other
USDA programs to improve their farms like their White
neighbors. These inequities place Black farmers at a
significant disadvantage to producing higher yields and being
profitable.
Mr. Chairman, on a trip to the local USDA office to inquire
about a beginning farmer loan, the county executive director
brandished a loaded handgun at my father and I and told me that
I did not need to get involved in farming and go get a job. My
father, like many other Black farmers across this nation, was a
victim of discrimination by USDA. After settling his case for
25 percent of his economic losses, they barred him from ever
borrowing money from USDA.
These issues are discriminatory, and if not addressed, you
and I will witness the extinction of Black row crop farmers.
In 2020 the world changed, and we were and still are in
what is called a pandemic. Unfortunately, Black farmers have
been going through a pandemic for years. We have watched our
fellow Black farmers be forced out of business and lose their
land at far greater rates than our White neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, the National Black Growers Council is
committed to the cause, and is working with our corporate
partners, fellow farm advocacy groups, and the Department of
Agriculture to reverse the declining trend of Black farmers and
landowners across these United States.
Mr. Chairman, I was a college student in 1997, and watched
my father, John Boyd, and other Black farmers from across this
nation sit before legislators and policymakers to explain these
disparities that exist between Black and White farmers. Twenty-
four years later, I am sitting before you, echoing the same
tones and explaining to lawmakers about the inequities that
still exist. Too many Black farmers have died with their cry
for help falling on deaf ears. Mr. Chairman, I would hope and
pray that my children do not have to sit at this table 24 years
from now, still asking for you to right the wrongs on behalf of
Black farmers.
Mr. Chairman, for all the people who have been working on
policy and legislation to help right the wrongs for Black
farmers, I would like to leave them with these words of faith
found in Galatians 6:9: ``Let us not become weary of doing
good, for at the proper time, we will reap a harvest if we do
not give up.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haynie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip J. Haynie III, Chairman, National Black
Growers Council, Burgess, VA
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the Committee:
On behalf of the National Black Growers Council, thank you for the
opportunity to testify at this important hearing today.
The National Black Growers Council consists of multigenerational
producers who advocate for the interests of Black farmers in their
local communities, their states, and to the Federal Government. NBGC's
mission is simple: to improve the efficiency productivity and
sustainability of Black row crop farmers.
As members of NBGC, we own our farms and seek opportunities to
expand our operations. We strive to teach young men and women about the
virtues of farming, the importance of agriculture, and the commitment
it takes to be successful in the global business of agriculture.
The NBGC was organized to represent the unique needs of full-time
Black row crop farmers. We have formed partnerships with each other,
with majority farmers, with land-grant universities, with agricultural
companies and with USDA, because together, we all contribute to global
food security.
I am a fifth-generation farmer. I grew up working my family land
with my father and grandfather in eastern Virginia where we grow corn,
wheat and soybeans. I had a childhood dream of wanting to be a farmer.
I finished high school and studied agriculture in college. I graduated
with a Bachelor's of Science degree in Agricultural Economics from
Virginia Tech and chose to return to my family farming business.
While growing up on my family farm, as a kid I experienced two
fires, the first one burned up our farrowing barn and our sow herd was
lost. The second fire, burned up our equipment and a finishing barn.
After my father rented the largest tract of land in the county, he
experienced his equipment being shot up on that farm. We had to sleep
in the truck with a shotgun whenever we left equipment on that farm. No
convictions resulted from these cowardly acts; but I don't think the
perpetrators were Black.
The discrimination at USDA caused my parents to have an
unbelievable amount of stress when they were denied loans or were late
receiving operating money. This unnecessary stress was created by the
uncertainty of farming in that era, fueled by racism, and ultimately
caused the divorce of my parents. The discrimination by USDA caused a
lot of young Black people to not want to be a part of their family's
farms.
The discrimination caused irrevocable damage to Black families.
While in college, I learned from one of my white friends about the
beginning farmer loan program at USDA. My father and I went into my
local county office to inquire about the beginning farmer loan. The
county executive director in my local county office asked me why did I
want to farm. He told me that I was a bright young man with a good head
on my shoulders and that I should focus on finding a good job after
college. When I questioned why he didn't encourage my white high school
friend to get a job and offered him a farm loan but not me he got
upset. He asked me if I knew how much money my father owed the USDA?
When I replied no I did not he opened my father's file and showed me
all of my father's USDA loans. After doing that, he brandished my
father and I with a loaded hand gun that he had in his desk. This
incident has caused me to have nightmares about being shot in that FSA
office. He also told my father; he should sell his land to a white
farmer in the county and get a job at the local lumber company driving
a forklift. Mr. Chairman, this is not something that happened to my
forefathers, or something that I read in the history books. This
happened to me.
If I had not gone through that experience, I may not be able to
relate to other Black farmers and their stories of discrimination. But
this is my story. And this is why I am here to make sure no other young
Black man or woman has to go through that experience again. Mr.
Chairman some scars in life are irreversible and that is one that time
cannot fade away.
Today's hearing is an important step towards addressing a number of
longstanding problems that continue to plague Black farmers. These
chronic problems formulate the cumulative effects of being historically
denied and impact three critical areas of farm sustainability: income,
access to credit, and risk management.
With regard to income, annual subsidies paid to Black farmers are
significantly less than subsidies received by their White farming
neighbors. Current subsidy options, Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC)
and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), are based primarily on the crops and
yields grown on from 1981-1985, a period of admitted racial
discrimination by USDA. Studies have shown that Black farmers receive
less than 20% of the per acre amounts paid to their White farming
neighbors. These inequities ultimately result in Black farmers being
less profitable, which impacts the second critical area, access to
credit.
This is especially true when commodity prices are low and subsidies
comprise a larger portion of farmers' income. The combined effects of
these inequities often result in Black farms being less productive and
having to rely on low-risk, low-reward enterprises. For example,
planting less profitable crops like soybeans, right beside our white
neighbors, because we lack the improvements like irrigation, land-
leveling and drainage that our white neighbors have who plant cotton,
rice and corn. Even when we can make improvements needed to break this
cycle, we face higher risks by only being able to obtain crop insurance
at average production histories that span 10 years. To address these
disparities, NBGC supports the following:
1. Provide credit needed to make improvements that would bring Black
farmers' land on par with the production potential of their
White neighbors;
2. Adjust Black farmers' subsidies to a level comparable to their
neighbors; and
3. Automatically adjust Black farmers' production history and
insurance coverage to an amount comparable to the farm's
potential after improvements are completed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to highlight the ongoing issue of
heirs' property rights impacting Black farmers. I mention this because
Heirs' property, land owned by two or more people, often with a common
ancestor who died without leaving a will, is the leading cause of
involuntary land loss among Black farmers.
As we at NBGC have said before, land is a farmer's most valuable
and productive asset. And yet, 60 percent of Black farmers today
produce on property that has been passed through their families for
generations without secure title. Without secure title, Black farmers
are unable to leverage the full value of their land, including
accessing Title I USDA programs. Black farmers have gone into local
USDA offices and have been told they cannot sign a farm up for program
participation because the farmer cannot provide all the signatures of
heirs on the property. They offer the white farmer the option to
provide a cash rent statement and not have to go through these
obstacles. We need a system where USDA will work with us where the
property is protected and benefits can be passed on to the operator.
In order to help address these outstanding issues, we and our
partners at John Deere and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund launched
the Legislation, Education, Advocacy, and Production Systems (or LEAP)
Coalition in September 2020. In cooperation with the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives and my colleague on this panel Mr. Blanding, the
LEAP Coalition brings awareness, expertise, and legal resources to help
Black and traditionally under-represented farmers gain clear title to
their land.
Specific activities the LEAP Coalition will support include:
Supporting legislation on Heirs' Property reform
Partnering in efforts to clearing title for Black farmers
Investing in Fellowships, Internships, and Agribusiness
career paths
Engaging in estate planning to prevent the further
proliferation of Heir's Property
Amplifying the work of The Federation of Southern
Cooperatives
Raising awareness regarding the issues and challenges
experienced by Black farmers
Providing education and training to support Long-term
Sustainability and Economic viability
After heir's property issues are cleared, NBGC plans to continue
working within our networks to bring this land to maximum productivity.
I want to thank our sustaining members for their support of this
legislation and their continued commitment to help us achieve this
goal.
In closing, it is clear that much work remains to address
longstanding issues impacting Black farmers. We look forward to working
with you and the Committee to address these issues moving forward, and
I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Haynie, for your
excellent, excellent report to us.
And now, I recognize Mr. Rowe. Please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SEDRICK ROWE, OWNER/OPERATOR, ROWE ORGANIC FARMS
LLC, ALBANY, GA
Mr. Rowe. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to be on
this call and be able to share my testimony. My name is Sedrick
Rowe. I am a young farmer from south Georgia. I do row crop and
I do also organic farming. I am a first generation farmer. I
have been farming for 4 years on my own. I had the opportunity
to graduate from a land-grant institution that also taught me a
little bit more about farming, and my experience of it, nothing
has changed since the past. Hearing my granddaddy and older
people talk about farming back in the day and how they weren't
able to access land and equipment. I am going through that
personally myself.
I applied for beginning farmer programs, micro loans. The
reason I didn't get funded, I don't know. I have a legit reason
why I need the assistance, and also, the red flags are still
there because I'm giving them all of my information, all of my
life, just for them to tell me no again. It holds me back as a
farmer.
I see the effort we are doing to allocate monies for those
programs, but are those programs actually funding these farmers
or not? Are these farmers taking advantage of those programs?
We are not able to, because when you look at a Black farmer,
you are thinking small. That is why we are on that one percent,
two percent level. Speaking from my personal experience, it has
just been hard to even get into the market with peanuts. As you
know, peanuts are a commodity, and in order for you to grow
peanut--a commodity sells itself. So, as a Black farmer, I
can't just take my peanuts to any peanut mill, because they
will say oh, we are full. They will give me some excuse of why
they can't take my peanuts.
As a young farmer, I created my own avenue to create my own
market, organic peanuts. Something that I know large farmers
can't compete with. That is why I stepped into another market
like hemp. I started doing more organic and start work focusing
on the soil and the land, something that we always focused on
growing up. Take care of the land, the land will take care of
you. Coming from that era and having that mentality, even my
little small piece of land, it matters just like a larger
farmer.
I see, to this day, monies being allocated to help out
young and Black farmers, and socially disadvantaged farmers,
but, it comes with so much just for that farmer to access that
money. You look on the other hand, it is easy for them to
access money. They will tell you I qualify for it, but when I
get there, it is a whole other story. We need to change up who
qualifies and who doesn't. A lot of the Black farmers miss out
on the opportunity to keep the land in their family name, so
they are forced to go get a loan from the government, which
nine times out of ten, brings them into more debt, because
everyone knows farming is a risk. Every year is not a
profitable year. Farmers like me will look, in order for me to
feel like the government is giving me the right assistance, it
is funny how we have a pandemic, and during the pandemic you
have other banks and all that that have forgiveness on their
loans, but government, USDA had loans out allocated for these
farmers, but you never gave them the option for forgiveness so
their family can keep their land in their name. Something to be
able to show--with forgiveness, you have to show what you are
doing, show how you--at this one step, how it bettered you--to
the next step. I feel like we need to take more steps and the
people at the top need to focus more on the people at the
bottom.
Just to lead with a scenario that--something that I always
used to tell people. The important person in the building is
the janitor. We as Black farmers are janitors. The top person
can be the principal or the President. If the President is not
too attentive, it is not a good structure. We need to make sure
we build that structure from the top all the way to the bottom
to the farmers. The people that are allocating this money need
to know exactly who is using it, why they are using it, who
really needs it. And I think there is a separation in between
there, because it is different saying, ``Yes, we put money out
there for you,'' but when we are not able to access it, it is
more like saying, ``Well, we put it there. It is up to you to
get it.'' That is not hope. That is not giving a farmer or a
Black farmer any hope to be able to continue to hold on to what
they had in their family.
So, that was just some personal stuff that I have been
through that I can still see that hasn't changed within the
system.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sedrick Rowe, Owner/Operator, Rowe Organic Farms
LLC, Albany, GA
My name is Sedrick Rowe. I am a young Black first generation
farmer. I have a Bachelors Degree in Plant Science with a concentration
Horticulture and a Masters of Public Health with a concentration in
Environmental Health. I own a 30 acre organic farm where I grow
peanuts, watermelons, sunflowers, and hemp. I was one of the first
three farmers in my area to establish a market for organic peanuts and
I am a founding member of the Georgia Organic Peanut Association. I
have been involved in agriculture all of my life and that experience
continues to show me what it takes to develop a successful farm
business. Unfortunately, I did not inherit land, so I built my farm
from the ground up by purchasing land. I have seen and experienced
racism and discrimination within the agricultural system, as have so
many other Black seasoned as well as young farmers. My experience has
allowed me to witness firsthand, the difficulties Black farmers have
when attempting to access funds from the United States Department of
Agriculture. I personally have been unable to access those funds while
watching my white counterparts having little, if any, problem doing so.
I have applied for micro-loans as well as Beginning Farmers Assistance
and was denied: reasons given included insufficient collateral, market
contracts were insufficient and tax returns for the previous year did
not show enough income to pay the loan. It is extremely difficult for a
beginning farmer to meet these criteria. Loan criteria has to be more
flexible and equitable--and should include a combination of loans and
grants.
Even when funds are supposedly put in place to assist Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, the rules, regulations and
paperwork make them difficult to access, for example, farming history
and matching funds. Although FSA is supposed to be the ``go to'' agency
for farmers who are having difficulty securing loans from commercial or
other sources, it falls way short when it comes to Black farmers--again
this comes from personal experience.
Although I consider myself to be a successful young Black farmer,
it is difficult for me to convince others to join me if I cannot assure
them that if they do all of the right things, they will have the
backing of the USDA.
Although Black farmers make up a small percentage of all farmers,
they play a critical role in making sure that marginalized people and
communities throughout the Black Belt Region have access to healthy and
affordable food. We need to make sure they not only remain in business
but that their number increases.
Community organizations also need support as they are often the
only thing standing in the way to keep people like me from losing their
farms. I once worked with one organization (The Southwest Georgia
Project). I saw how these organizations advocated on behalf of farmers
of color and worked through the red tape when farmers could not do so
themselves. In many instances they helped mitigate the lack of trust
between the USDA and farmers of color. So their continued existence and
sustainability is critical.
In the end, it is the responsibility of the USDA to level the
playing field so that Black and other minority farmers can not only
survive, but also prosper.
Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rowe, for
your very good and very informative testimony. Thank you.
And now, Mrs. Sherrod, we recognize you. Please begin now.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY SHERROD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST
GEORGIA PROJECT FOR COMMUNITY
EDUCATION, INC., ALBANY, GA
Mrs. Sherrod. Thank you, Chairman Scott--can you hear--and
the Committee for inviting me to speak today.
I grew up on a farm and my life's work has been with
farmers and people in rural communities in the South. On a more
personal note, though, today, March 25, marks the 56th
anniversary of the death of my father, a farmer who was
murdered by a White farmer that the racist system failed to
prosecute. It is within this context that I dedicated my life
to help make this world more just and equitable for everyone.
For over 5 decades, I have worked with and on behalf of
farmers, especially Black farmers and the rural communities in
which they live. Although Black farmers share many of the
problems faced by all small farmers, their situation is
compounded by systemic racism within the USDA and other public
and private institutions that are supposed to serve all
farmers, no matter their race or agenda.
The USDA is assumed to be the source of last resort when
the private-sector falls short. Unfortunately, since its
inception, USDA itself has fallen short and failed to meet its
obligations to Black farmers. Regrettably, the USDA has been
the driving force behind the steady decline in the number of
Black farmers and Black-owned farmland. This loss has and
continues to have a domino effect throughout the Black Belt
region of America and beyond. Without productive land that
supports economic development, the region suffers from
inadequate education, lack of access to healthy and affordable
food, poor health outcomes, and brain drain, among other
things.
Now, the USDA did admit in the Pigford case that it has a
history of discrimination against Black farmers. That admission
and subsequent settlement did not bring about any systemic
changes and left in place many of the individuals who
perpetrated the racism and discrimination. In fact, to my
knowledge, I, a Black woman, am the only person ever fired by
the USDA for discrimination, a claim that was later disproven.
Although Pigford itself was historic and exposed the real USDA,
unfortunately because the government was so incalcitrant, over
90 percent of the farmers who prevailed in the lawsuit were not
made whole.
So, where do we go from here? We need to restore Section
2501. This policy was the brainchild of the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives nearly 3 decades ago. I was a staff
member of the Federation, and therefore, very familiar with all
the work and documentation that led to its passing as a
permanent part of the farm bill. Its original intent was to
provide farmers of color, especially Black farmers with
outreach and technical assistance, so they could better access
USDA services.
The second one, eliminate burdensome matching requirements.
Many USDA programs require a match that is out of reach for
most Black farmers. This is akin to a poll tax. It keeps the
benefit out of our hands.
Three, engage in real problem solving. Use the Georgia
Strike Force example as a model, and fully fund it. Invest in
1890s. 1890 universities are key to Black farmers' success.
Ensure that they are funded adequately--equitably, let's say.
Launch infrastructure fund, provide funds for Black farmers to
develop or improve processing facilities, secure
transportation, organize cooperatives, and more. Diversify the
staff. Mandate increasing diversity in USDA staff makeup. And
last, culture change. Staff culture flows from the culture of
the leaders. Secretary Vilsack should invest significant time
and effort into building a culture in which discrimination is
not tolerated, and is with the end in which dismantling of
systemic racism is rewarded.
Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. These are
but a few things that we can begin to put in place today while
we wait on the fate of policies currently under consideration.
We must also understand that even if these policies are
approved, they only represent a down payment on what is owed to
Black farmers and their communities after more than a century
of neglect and discrimination.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Sherrod follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shirley Sherrod, Executive Director, Southwest
Georgia Project for Community Education, Inc., Albany, GA
My name is Shirley Sherrod; I live in Albany, Georgia and currently
serve as the Executive Director of the Southwest Georgia Project for
Community Education, Inc. (SWGP). SWGP is a nonprofit organization that
was born out of the civil rights movement with a mission to educate,
engage and empower communities through grassroots organizing and
technical assistance.
On a more personal note, today March 25, marks the 56th anniversary
of the death of my father, a farmer who was murdered by a white farmer
that the racist system failed to prosecute. It is within this context
that I dedicated my life to help make this world more just and
equitable for everyone.
For over 5 decades, I have worked with and on behalf of farmers--
especially Black farmers--and the rural communities in which they live.
I also served under the Obama Administration as the first Black State
Director of Rural Development. My work has afforded me the opportunity
to help build coalitions that cross both state and international
borders. I have learned that small farmers throughout the world are
struggling to survive in an environment that overwhelmingly favors
large scale and corporate farms.
Although Black farmers share many of the problems faced by all
small farmers, their situation is compounded by systemic racism within
the USDA and other public and private institutions, that are supposed
to provide services to all farmers no matter their race or gender. The
USDA is assumed to be the source of last resort when the private-sector
falls short of its duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, since
its inception, the USDA itself has fallen short and failed to meet its
obligations to Black farmers; regrettably, the USDA has been the
driving force behind the steady decline in the number of Black farmers
and Black owned farm land. This loss has and continues to have a domino
effect throughout the Black Belt Region of America and beyond. Without
productive land that supports economic development, the region suffers
from inadequate education, lack of access to healthy and affordable
food, poor health outcomes and brain drain among other things.
The USDA has been called the last plantation and for the most part
has worked relentlessly to live up to that reputation. Its efforts to
try and remedy the problem it caused, has generally fallen way short.
Those efforts are usually under-funded, short-lived, at the mercy of
changing Administrations and opposition from employees.
There has to be a long-term, well-resourced commitment at all
levels of the USDA if Black farmers are to remain part of America's
production agriculture system.
Although the USDA did admit in the Pigford case that it has a
history of discrimination against Black farmers, that admission and
subsequent settlement did not bring about any systemic changes and left
in place many of the individuals who perpetuated the racism and
discrimination. In fact, to my knowledge, I (a Back woman) am the only
person ever fired by the USDA for discrimination, a claim that was
later disproven. Although Pigford itself was historic and exposed the
``real USDA'', unfortunately because the government was so
incalcitrant, over 90 percent of the farmers who prevailed in the
lawsuit were not made whole.
The question is ``where do we go from here?''
There are two game changing policies (Justice for Black Farmers Act
and the recently passed Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act) that
could address some of the past and current problems faced by Black
farmers and the communities in which they live. History has shown that
good legislation often dies or is weakened in the regulatory and
implementation process. While we wait for the outcome of the two
policies, there are things that can be done now to help struggling
Black farmers and communities.
Following are a few commonsense examples:
Too often USDA uses regulations to hinder rather than help
Black farmers such as the Value-Added Producer Program which
requires matching funds as well as certain NRCS grants. Also
constant changes in the Section 2501 program--changes that are
making it less [accessible] for the groups it was originally
intended for.
Return section 2501 to its original intent. This policy was
the brainchild of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land
Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF) nearly 3 decades ago. I was a staff
member of the FSC/LAF and therefore very familiar with all the
work and documentation that led to its passing as a permanent
part of the farm bill. Its original intent was to provide
farmers of color (especially Black farmers) with outreach and
technical assistance so that they could better access USDA and
other services as they work to develop successful farm
businesses. That assistance would be provided by experienced
community organization and minority serving universities.
Unfortunately, 2501 has become a catchall for almost any small
farm program such as beginning farmers and veteran farmers.
These farmers are important and deserve a separate program to
meet their needs while 2501 should return to its original
intent and be fully funded.
Many of the resources within the USDA cannot be accessed by
Black farmers and community-based organizations; the reason
being that they cannot meet the matching requirement or other
restrictive rules such as having to collaborate and work with
other community-based organizations across state lines. These
requirements should be eliminated and funds provided solely on
the merits of the farmers or CBO's business plan or program
respectively.
The USDA's now dormant Strike Force program was based on a
program I instituted while serving as Georgia State Director of
Rural Development. It brought together all agencies within the
USDA to analyze problems and employed a holistic approach to
solving those problems. The program enjoyed mild success and
could have had tremendous success had funds been earmarked
especially for it. That program should be revisited by the
Secretary of Agriculture.
While I cannot speak for 1890 Universities, I will say that
they play a key role in the survival of Black farmers and rural
communities. There needs to be more equitable funding for these
universities.
Black farmers need to be able to market their products and
not be limited to any one market; they have to be able to
diversify their markets. To do this, they need the necessary
infrastructure. There needs to be a Black farmer infrastructure
fund that will allow farmers to develop and/or improve
processing facilities, secure appropriate transportation,
organize cooperatives, etc.
There has to be diversity within the various USDA state
offices and everyone in those offices should be held
accountable.
The USDA can only stop being the ``last plantation'' when
the culture within the Department changes.
These are but a few of the things we can begin to put in place
today while we wait on the fate of policies currently under
consideration. We must also understand that even if these policies are
approved, they only represent a down payment of what is owed to Black
farmers and their communities after more than a century of neglect and
discrimination.
The Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mrs.
Sherrod. We are learning so much here, and the purpose of this
hearing is we are putting together a bill, a piece of
legislation to address and come out. Rest assured that your
testimony, your ideas are not in vain, because we are putting
together Black farmers and a piece of legislation to bring
this. So, this is just the beginning. Thank you all so very
much.
And now, we have, I believe, Mrs. Cotton. Mrs. Cotton,
would you begin your testimony?
Mrs. Cotton, you may want to unmute.
Mrs. Cotton. Chairman Scott?
The Chairman. Yes.
STATEMENT OF ARNETTA COTTON, CO-OWNER AND PROGRAM FACILITATOR,
KINGDOM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, WAGONER, OK; ACCOMPANIED BY EARRAK
COTTON, OWNER, CATTLE FOR THE KINGDOM
Mrs. Cotton. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, we would like to
begin--can you see me? Can you hear me?
The Chairman. Yes, go right ahead. We can hear and see you.
Mrs. Cotton. Okay.
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, we would like to begin by thanking
you and God for the privilege and honor of testifying in this
hearing. It is our hope that something said or done will result
in greater understanding, reconciliation, and change.
Thank you, Representative Tracey Mann, for our
introduction.
Little children across the United States who grew up
watching their parents passionately work the land through
torrential rains, incessant droughts, troublesome pestilence,
and extreme poverty were often consumed by the idea that one
day, this land will be mine. Somewhere between working behind
the plow for several hours at a time in the blazing sun for
days on end to get the crops in and out, and the rare
opportunities to reward themselves with a soda or an ice cream,
they developed an insatiable obsession with nature. However, to
be Black and possess that type of intensity towards the Earth
in the United States at a young age can accurately be compared
to someone laboring under the sweltering sun in a desert
towards something that appears to be real, but in fact, is an
optical illusion. Over time, as the mirage steadily relocates,
the child matures to adulthood. What remains is a diminutive
essence of potential. Yet, despite years of imagining, the
slightest scent of possibility is all that is required to
stimulate hope in the heart of a Black farmer.
We felt that hope. So, when at the age of 24 and married
less than 5 years with two baby girls, we were advised that the
then-FmHA was an agency that existed to assist young and
beginning farmers, especially minorities. We thought we would
be welcomed with open arms. Instead, when we stepped into our
county FmHA office in 1984, the secretary looked up and
continued working without ever acknowledging our presence.
``Ma'am, is this the FmHA,'' we asked. ``Yes,'' she answered,
never moving from her desk. An unwelcoming aura and
overwhelming strangeness filled the room. Without ever a word
spoken, its presence seemed to demand that we simply turn
around and leave. But we didn't. The county supervisor's tenure
could not be denied, but neither could his unorthodox practices
and forgetfulness. We had meetings at his home. Our file was
lost and misplaced several times. Some years later, our initial
contact transitioned out of his role, and we were buried under
the transition of powers. For example, on several occasions,
the FmHA contractor and Langston University representatives
reworked our farm plan on the same application, and they
concluded we had good records. Our cattle were in excellent
condition, and that was an average production and some non-farm
income, the plan was feasible. Yet despite their findings, the
county committee rebutted that they were not comfortable with
our abilities, that the entire application should be changed.
And since we could not effectively explain the reworked plan,
we could not possibly implement them with any degree of
success. All of our alternative plans were repeatedly denied,
but no viable plan for success was ever offered.
Were it not for the elders who had a keen eye for
identifying those whose work ethics and moral compass and
instinctive cunning were perfectly suited for the land, they
would have become extinct. Thankfully, one such elder offered
her wisdom and trust to us, so we appealed the decision of the
county supervisor. We appealed, and the decision was
overturned.
But despite it overturning, the FSA office said maybe we
should go ahead and let the applicant know that further
information is needed. The county supervisor told us that we
needed to get our property appraised, and he selected the
appraiser. Coincidentally, that appraiser appraised our
property for less than it was valued for a year earlier. And
despite winning our appeal, we lost the denial of our
application.
It was not our county office who told us about the
designation and how language was expressly written to extend
help to socially disadvantaged people. A friend helped us to
navigate through this system. We went to USDA in Washington,
D.C., and met with several officials. These consultations
resulted in our first community meeting. There were over 100
people there in 4" of rain. We partnered with Langston
University.
Let me just skip down to this, if you would, please, Mr.
Chairman.
One of the reasons that local churches and faith-based
organizations are the backbone in communities and the F2F
Program is because people trust them. We serve from hearts of
love with boots on the ground. It is the same spirit that we
really--we humbly ask this Committee----
The Chairman. I am sorry.
Mrs. Cotton. Let me say this. May I please? May I say this?
The Chairman. I am going to----
Mrs. Cotton. We have faith in God who created one race of
people, the human race, and who created the Earth, the one on
which we exist together, and the heavens, the ones that we
continue to explore. We believe that He gave us the ability in
Him to equitably dwell together in peace, harmony, and love, to
preserve this beautiful land.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cotton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arnetta Cotton, Co-Owner and Program Facilitator,
Kingdom Community Development Services, Wagoner, OK
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, we would like to begin by thanking you and God for
the privilege and honor of testifying in this hearing. It is our hope
that something said or done will result in greater understanding,
reconciliation, and change.
We are Earrak and Arnetta Cotton of Oklahoma, and we have more than
54 years of farm and ranch experience and 39 years of farm and ranch
management experience as the owners of Cattle For The Kingdom (CFTK).
Earrak is retired from a 30 year career service with State Farm
Insurance and now serves as the head pastor of Unity Temple Family
Church in Inola, Oklahoma--a body of Believers that started more than
100 years ago. He also serves on the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) State Technical
Committee in Oklahoma. Arnetta currently serves as the Program
Facilitator for Kingdom Community Development Services, the Rural
Impact Food Pantry, and the Agricultural in Action Program which
includes a market gardening school and farm training program in
conjunction with Langston University--the 1890 Land-Grant University in
Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State University--the 1862 land-grant in the
state. She was also appointed by Secretary Sonny Perdue to serve on the
USDA Minority Farmers Advisory Committee.
Little children across the United States who grew up watching their
parents passionately work the land through torrential rains, incessant
droughts, troublesome pestilence, and extreme poverty were often
consumed by the idea, ``One day this land will be mine.'' Somewhere
between working behind a plow for several hours at a time in the
blazing sun for days on end to get the crops in and out, and the rare
opportunities to reward themselves with a soda or ice cream, they
developed an insatiable obsession with nature.
However, to be Black and possess that type of intensity towards the
[E]arth in the United States at a young age can accurately be compared
to somebody laboring under the sweltering sun in a desert towards
something that appears to be real; but, in fact, is nothing more than
an optical illusion. Over time, as the mirage steadily relocates, the
child matures to adulthood. What remains is the diminutive essence of
potential. Yet despite years of imagining, the slightest scent of
possibility is all that is required to stimulate hope in the heart of a
Black farmer.
We felt that hope. So, when at the age of 24 and married less than
5 years with two baby girls, we were advised that the then Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) was an agency that existed to assist young and
beginning farmers, especially minorities, we thought we would be
welcomed with open arms. Instead, when we first stepped in our county
FmHA office in 1984, the secretary looked up then continued working
without ever acknowledging our presence.
``Ma'am, is this the FmHA?'' We asked.
``Yes,'' she answered, never moving from her desk.
An unwelcoming aura and overwhelming strangeness filled the room.
Without a word ever spoken, its presence seemed to demand that we
simply turn around and leave; but we didn't.
The County Supervisor's tenure could not be denied, but neither
could his unorthodox practices and forgetfulness. We had meetings at
his home, and our file was lost and misplaced several times. Some years
later, as our initial contact transitioned out of his role, we were
buried under the transition of powers. For example, on separate
occasions an FmHA contractor and Langston University representative
reworked our farm plan on the same application and concluded we had
good records, our cattle were in excellent condition, and that with an
average production and some non-farm income, our plan was feasible. Yet
despite their findings, the County Committee rebutted that they were
not comfortable with our abilities, that the entire application should
be changed, and that since we could not effectively explain the
reworked plans, we could not possibly implement them with any degree of
success. All our alternative plans and approaches were repeatedly
denied, but no viable plan for success was ever offered.
Our calls were avoided, refused, or forwarded to oblivion; we were
required to travel to various USDA offices, restaurants and even ball
parks for any chance to discuss the issue; our meetings were canceled
and rescheduled without notice; and unofficial County Committee
meetings took place where official decisions were made on our
application without having a completed application to review.
Often, these experiences were witnessed by our four children.
Were it not for the Elders who had a keen eye for identifying those
whose work ethics, moral compass, and instinctive cunning were
perfectly suited for survival, far more Black farmers would have become
extinct. Thankfully, these strategic leaders (though few in number)
persevered through insurmountable odds and outlasted personal assaults
to maintain some semblance of dignity as they paid for their land one
penny at a time.
Often, when the stage was properly set and everything was
synchronized for change, they would test the waters by leasing a
portion of their land to a competent, but less experienced person of
color whom they could mentor through the process. The eventual glimmer
in their eyes served as witness of their approval. While their wisdom
was readily available, they understood for the fledgling farmer to
establish a faithful relationship with the land, they had to learn
about her incalculable nuances for themselves. This search for intimacy
would inevitably rekindle a desire in the Black farmer to own their own
property. One such Elder offered her wisdom to and trust in us.
So, we appealed the decision of the County Supervisor. We appealed
because of the unjustifiable dragging out of our application process;
the deteriorated condition of our home; and the intentional and
persistent prodding and provocation we experienced. In 1994, the
decision to deny us was overturned, and the state Farm Service Agency
(FSA) office advised that the best course of action would be to proceed
with the application and to let the applicant know what further
information was needed.
The County Supervisor told us we only needed to have the property
appraised, and he secured an appraisal service. Conveniently, the
appraiser the County Supervisor secured valued the property for far
less than its original worth only a year earlier. Despite winning our
appeal, our request was ultimately denied based on the appraisal.
You may not know this, but the term ``underserved farmer''
originated from eight Black farmers in West Central Oklahoma who
submitted a court brief in Pigford v. Glickman. The designation is
meant to address the unique circumstances and concerns of underserved
farmers, including Black farmers, and focus on equity in accessing USDA
programs and services. The term has been used to initiate a wide
variety of programs and resources at USDA, including grants and loans
and scholarship opportunities for students studying agriculture at 1890
and 1994 land-grant universities.
It was not our county office who told us about this designation and
how the language was expressly written to extend help to socially
disadvantaged farmers like us. They did not tell us this when we were
initially denied, when we were denied for the second time, or even
after we were instructed to get an appraisal. It was a friend, who like
us had experienced more than 35 years of extreme racial and
programmatic discrimination at the hands of others.
That friend helped us navigate the system. He introduced us to key
contacts at USDA including then Oklahoma state directors, Gary O'Neill
at NRCS, Dr. Lee Denny at Rural Development, and Scott Biggs at FSA as
well as Mike Beatty and Jacqueline Davis-Slay at USDA's Office of
Partnerships of Public Engagement (OPPE). In fact, it was at a USDA
OPPE Faith Fellows Training in Washington, D.C. where we learned about
developing and maintaining partnerships focused on solutions to
challenges facing rural and underserved communities like ours. Our
friend also helped us learn that we could utilize programs from all
USDA arms to solve the issues that have plagued us for nearly 40 years
and other Black farmers for centuries. In fact, we could utilize
community facility loans for our nonprofit community organization; farm
labor housing programs; water and sewer grants; and more.
Those consultations resulted in our first community outreach
meeting at the church we lead. We were able to share the information we
had learned with more than 100 people who came to learn about USDA
resources during a deluge of 4" of rain.
Because of our new knowledge of USDA programs and partnerships
stemming from our various community outreaches, we have also:
Partnered with Langston University to host an 8 month
Marketing Garden School including an active garden throughout
the growing season that supported our local Farmers Market;
Distributed Farmers to Families Food Boxes to more than a
million people through all five phases in Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas;
Distributed 500 turkeys at Thanksgiving last year thanks to
our partnership with IRUSA;
Purchase equipment, supplies, and materials necessary to
bring our pantry up to code thanks to Cherokee Nation;
Earrak became Oklahoma's first African Native American by
card to serve on the NRCS Oklahoma State Technical Committee;
and
Arnetta was selected by then Secretary Sonny Perdue to serve
on the USDA Minority Farmers Advisory Committee.
One of the reasons local churches and faith-based organizations are
the backbone in communities and the F2F program is because people trust
them. We serve from hearts of love with boots on the ground. It is in
this same [spirit] that we rally the cause for other Black farmers. We
forward information we receive to area farmers and other interested
parties. We take calls. We provide information. We instruct and
advocate. That mentality should prevail when working with and
conducting outreach to Black farmers.
We can no longer afford to shroud the lack of follow-through
business with Black Farmers in the busyness of meetings about Black
Farmers. We should not only come with business cards, but also with
applications prepared to give our time not just our contact
information. We should go to whatever lengths necessary to provide
thorough and complete information and assistance. There is still much
work to be done, and we are committed to helping achieve this goal.
We humbly ask this Committee to consider implementing a Pilot
Program with HBCU's Outreach Programs in cooperation with active Black
Community Based Organizations to implement comprehensive training
programs on behalf of USDA to underserved farmers in how to complete a
Whole Farm Plan with subsequent technical and practical support.
Additionally, we ask that you consider offer training and compensation
for non-governmental Black farmers to conduct community outreach
meetings for USDA, FSA, NRCS and RD. This would, in turn, bolster
confidence, participation and stimulate new interest in USDA programs.
Just as we have faith in God who created one race of people--the
human race; one [E]arth--the one on which we dwell together; and the
heavens, which we continue to explore, we earnestly believe He gave us
the ability in Him to equitably dwell together in peace, harmony and
love in order to preserve it all.
Thank you again, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I tell you what, fantastic and very informative, and very
impressive testimony that we have heard from our distinguished
panelists, all of our Black farmers here. It has been
tremendous and very helpful. And from our Secretary as well.
And now, we are going to now proceed to getting questions
from us Members. I am going to start, then the Ranking Member,
and then we are going to go with each of our Members on the
Committee, alternating between Democrats and Republicans.
And first of all, let me start with this question, if I
may. I recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I will be held to
that to be sure to set the proper example. I hope everybody
heard me there.
Secretary Vilsack, again, let me thank you for coming. But
I want you to clear up for us, if we have this--can you hear
me, Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Good. We have just passed the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 in which we had a total of right at $5 billion
to get to our Black farmers.
First of all, $4 billion of it was for the loan
forgiveness. Now, tell me what are the instructions for how our
farmers can make sure they get access to that money? How long
will it take, and will there be some cumbersome bureaucracy in
the way of them getting it, first of all?
Second of all, is it true that this money for the loan
forgiveness that our Black farmers will be getting will be
subject to taxation, that the IRS will count it as income, and
then they got another bill to pay? Clear up the entire
disposition, and let's get it plain how we can make sure that
this big hit we are giving to help our farmers get right to
them quickly, immediately.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, the instructions, first
and foremost, is to do this as quickly, as thoughtfully, and
carefully as possible. Two types of loans we are dealing with,
direct loans and guaranteed loans.
Let me deal with the direct loans first. To the extent that
it is a relatively simple, straightforward loan, we are going
to try to get this--these done sort of in a tiered circumstance
situation as quickly as possible. One hundred twenty percent,
basically, the loan gets paid off. Twenty percent goes to the
farmer. Now, farmers are going to have to think about this
because to your question on taxation----
The Chairman. Well, wait just a minute. You say of the
amount, 20 percent goes to the farmer?
Secretary Vilsack. Twenty percent goes to the farmer for
the purpose of paying the tax.
The Chairman. Good. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. But, farmers need to think about this,
Mr. Chairman, because depending upon the size of the loan, the
tax issue may be so that you may want to divide potentially the
forgiveness of the loan over more than 1 tax year in order to
minimize your tax liability. That is why it is going to be
necessary for us to use a portion of the money from Section
1006 to provide outreach, technical assistance, and advice so
the people can make the best decision for their farm so they
don't find themselves in a deeper hole when this is all said
and done.
On the guaranteed loan side, remember, we are dealing with
banks where we have essentially guaranteed the loan. And we
have sent a letter today to those banks, basically indicating
that they are to take no further action whatsoever to foreclose
on farmers; that we are going to work with them to get these
loans paid off. Now, a question is going to come up if there is
a prepayment penalty. There may be a prepayment penalty in that
loan. We are going to ask for documentation of that prepayment
penalty, and we are going to try to figure out how to deal with
that. I don't have an answer today. I just know that it is an
issue that we are going to have to confront and think about.
And some of these guaranteed loans themselves have been
sold by the bank, which makes a bit of a complication. But at
the end of the day, this whole purpose is to try to get this
done as quickly as possible, as effectively as possible, and to
provide farmers enough information and outreach so they can
make informed decisions about their direct loan and the tax
implications, and we can settle up their guaranteed loan
without any further disruption.
The Chairman. Now, very quickly, Mr. Secretary, how much of
your time personally will be devoted to getting the full $5
billion out to our Black farmers? How much time will you be
putting in to that, because I believe if you have that as your
top agenda, it will speed the process down the line. Because
you are working it out. There are problems here. Go ahead.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't have any doubt that my staff
understands that this is the top of my list in terms of
priorities. The whole equity issue, the whole equity effort is
at the top of the list in terms of time that we will spend
collectively as a team focused on all of these issues, and
specifically with the debt relief portion of it.
The Chairman. All right, thank you. I will bring the gavel
down on myself here.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
First of all, thank you. Thank you for the compelling
testimony, to each of the witnesses today, your verbal
testimony, and quite frankly, your written testimony that you
provided us.
I want to reach out to Pastor and Mrs. Cotton, and say
thank you so much for your ministry and how you have really
focused all aspects of your ministry, as I have gone through
your testimony. What a blessing. What a blessing. All the work
that you do, really, and now you are bringing glory and honor
to God in your work. It is much appreciated.
In your testimony, you mentioned USDA's Office of
Partnerships and Public Engagement. Can you elaborate more on
your experience with the Faith Fellows training that you
attended in Washington, and how that experience contributed to
your interactions with the USDA?
Mrs. Cotton. Absolutely. It was during that Faith Fellows
training, and it was the inaugural training that nearly every
department within the USDA was present. Not only did they give
individual presentations to the entire group, but by the end of
the 5th day, we all gathered into an auditorium in sections,
and we could go to those different departments individually to
ask questions, and they were able to answer those questions. As
a result, we stayed in contact with them. As we began to
implement the instructions that they had given us and the
different suggestions that they had given, we began to
implement it. We became a 501(c)(3) for a community outreach
organization. We partnered with land-grant universities, both
Langston University and OSU. We partnered with Convoy of Hope,
and other things. But this was as a result. Even Islamic Relief
USA, we were able to partner with them as a result.
When we had questions that could not be answered on the
local level, we could reach out to those people in D.C. And all
of that was as a result of OPPE.
Even when information conflicted from here to there, they
would get involved and help us to resolve. We began to have
community outreach meetings. We have had, I believe, six to
date. We partnered with NRCS. We entered into the Conservation
Program. And everyone who attends our program, as information
is forwarded to us, we forward that information on to them. We
field telephone calls, answer questions. And then we attend
every single meeting that we can on our local, district, state,
and national level regarding all of these different entities.
So, we are busy beavers.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, you are very busy. Thank you for what
you do. It sounds like it is very successful, those
partnerships, that collaboration.
Based on your experience so far into this, we always look
for opportunities, even when we are getting things right. We
always try to do better, right? I think we are called to do
that.
Mrs. Cotton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Are there any lessons you have learned so far
on improvements you would recommend on how we could continue to
develop and maintain those partnerships with Black farmers and
other socially disadvantaged farmers?
Mrs. Cotton. Definitely. In most of the community outreach
meetings, they are conducted by governmental employees and they
are basically saying the same thing. They come in--I have
likened it to a USDA infomercial group, because they say
basically the same thing.
If other non-governmental employees with organizations who
have proven records, who maybe possibly could even be trained
by the government to have--they have a certain trust level that
is garnered with communities of color and people of color. If
those outreaches could be conducted by them in partnership with
land-grant universities, in partnership with active Black
organizations, farming organizations such as the Oklahoma Black
Historical Society, and even our own group, to put out these
community outreach meetings, and then follow through. Because I
understand that in the USDA, many of the organizations have
been compiled, joined in, so there are less bodies out in the
field, and that strain on the local employees is felt with the
local farmer. We believe that if some sort of pilot program
could be implemented to help us to be your feet on the ground
in order to get this information out. We have proven these
organizations that I have named, including USDA--Langston and
OSU, they have a good proven record.
Mr. Thompson. Very effective.
Well, thank you, Mrs. Cotton and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson. I
appreciate that.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
historic hearing with the Agriculture Committee and it is good
to see you, Secretary Vilsack, my friend. And for all your
years of service to our country and your commitment today to
root out racism and discrimination that has been historic, as
noted by the testimony. What terrific testimony our witnesses
have provided, and suggestions and advice for legislation that,
as the Chairman indicated, we will act on.
In preparation for this hearing, I asked a constituent of
mine, Mr. Will Scott, President of the African American Farmers
of California, to provide some testimony, which, Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record.
[The statement referred to is located on p. 322.]
Mr. Costa. In his testimony, he details a history of
discrimination from loan denials, as has been stated in the
testimony earlier, to unequal access to markets, which is a
problem. But I wanted to realign what really stood out to me.
Mr. Will Scott, a third-generation farmer like myself and our
family, he said ``Members of the African American Farmers of
California are fearful to apply for any loans from the USDA and
do not want to deal with government, as they fear they will
lose everything they have.'' That is a sad commentary.
We all know that farmers are risk takers, but when you have
to deal with the discrimination that African American farmers
and other minority farmers have had to deal with, it makes the
risk taking all that greater. It is clear today from the
history of discrimination at the USDA that there is still an
impact.
I remember Secretary Vilsack talking to President Obama--
and I shared this with John Boyd the other day--that I told
him--President Obama, I said, ``Farmers are risk takers, but
they are also price takers, not price makers.'' And President
Obama is a very smart guy, but he is from the city. He said,
``Price takers, not price makers. What do you mean?'' I said,
``When you put all this investment every year into your crop,
and then at the end of the year you get whatever the price
is.'' He says, ``I never thought about it that way. Price
takers, not price makers.''
Mr. Secretary, it is critical that you work to provide and
rebuild trust with Black and other socially disadvantaged
farmers so that American agriculture can better reflect the
diversity in our country, and our minority populations. In my
own district, USDA has indicated that we have 14 African
American farmers, over 76 Native American farmers, 771 Asian
farmers, many Pacific Asian farmers, over 1,000 Hispanic
farmers, and over 5,600 Caucasian White farmers. It is
important to note that out because discrimination is not only
for African American farmers, but Southeast Asian farmers in my
district. It is estimated that approximately over the 1,000
Southeast Asian farmers in the Central Valley, many of them
Hmong that settled after the Vietnam War, the USDA aid has not
been there for them. I would like to submit testimony from the
Asian Pacific Institute of Resources in Fresno, Blong Xiong is
the Chair of that, detailing the shortcomings on providing
support for those farmers. And I ask unanimous consent to
submit that testimony as well, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement referred to is located on p. 323.]
Mr. Costa. Mr. Secretary, one of the barriers to access at
the USDA programs by Black farmers and Southeast Asian farmers,
Latino farmers in my district seems to be complicated and
burdensome applications to requirements and the backlog of the
local Farm Service Agency offices, FSA. Sanford Bishop, my
colleague--and he is a cardinal and chairs the Subcommittee on
this--and I have talked about it.
As part of your efforts to get more aid to socially
disadvantaged farmers, can you commit to ensuring that local
FSA offices are properly staffed with the diversity reflected
by the farmers they serve and have language capabilities?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Mr. Costa. That is so important. The previous
Administration, we complained that there wasn't sufficient
support in these FSA offices. The testimony we have heard
already today has indicated that as such. You are going to have
to focus that, not only for the American Rescue Plan, but to
really expedite the support for this. We have a backlog in CFAP
1 of over 4 months already in my own district.
Secretary Vilsack. Representative, I think there are
several things to this.
First, we have to cast a wider net for people to work in
these local offices. Second, as has been mentioned earlier, we
need more partnerships and more connections with community
building organizations that can assist us. As has been
indicated, there is a trust issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Costa. My time is going to expire, but Mr. Chairman, I
want to submit a third level of testimony. A staff member,
Major Henry Munoz, who has just retired and is going to go to
work for me, dedicated outreach to listen to stories needed for
socially disadvantaged farmers in my district. I would like to
submit his report for the record.
[The report referred to is located on p. 318.]
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired there.
Thank you.
Mr. Costa. I want to submit the testimony. Is that
possible?
The Chairman. Yes, that is possible. Thank you. We will
take it.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to look at it and
I will share it with you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are quite welcome. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
And now, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Austin
Scott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Mrs. Sherrod, Mr. Blanding, and Mr. Rowe are from right down
the road from where I am. I actually live in Tifton, Georgia.
Mrs. Sherrod, I don't have a question for you, but I am
very familiar with what happened to you where somebody changed
the context of what you said and you lost your job because of
that, in 2010, and I am glad you won that suit against that
news organization that ran that false article. I heard what you
said and I saw what they reported, and I thought they very much
changed the context.
Mr. Blanding, I think you are very much right about the
heirs-related issue. I think that is something that we can work
on together that has happened, and I hope that some of the
money that has come through the recent legislation will help
with that.
Mr. Rowe, you are obviously a young farmer in Albany,
Georgia, and I am right down the road in Tifton. If I can ever
help you please feel free to reach out to us.
Mr. Boyd, I certainly enjoyed my conversation with you and
your wife the other day, and as I mentioned to you, to me, some
of the challenges of the African American farmers, they are not
limited to African American farmers. It is pretty much all of
our small farmers, beginning farmers, and I hope as we go
forward, we are able to look at young, beginning, small,
regardless of race with regard to how we handle things at the
USDA, because there are a lot of people out there that need
help, and we need more farmers, not fewer farmers in the United
States.
I told you this, Mr. Boyd. I don't have a question for you,
but I do have an issue with the language in Section 1005,
Secretary Vilsack. Can you tell me, Secretary Vilsack, were all
of the socially disadvantaged farmers included in the relief
provided in Section 1005?
Secretary Vilsack. If you are defining socially
disadvantaged farmers as consistent with the 1990 Act, yes,
which is based on race and ethnicity. There are other
definitions----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The current definition of a
socially disadvantaged farmer, can you tell me who is excluded
from Section 1005 versus the current definition of a socially
disadvantaged-farmer?
Secretary Vilsack. I want to make sure I understand your
question, Congressman. Are you asking me does the provisions of
the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 define socially
disadvantaged, or are you referring to some other definition of
socially disadvantaged?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Secretary Vilsack, the current
definition, what I am getting at. You are wasting time. The
current definition of a socially disadvantaged farmer, which
farmers that are currently eligible for the socially
disadvantaged farmer loans are not eligible for the relief
under Section 1005?
Secretary Vilsack. White women.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Secretary Vilsack, you are familiar with the case Love v.
Vilsack?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And so, respectfully, you were
named not personally, but as Secretary of the USDA, so this is
not a personal accusation, but there was a settlement with that
case as well, correct?
Secretary Vilsack. There was.
There is a difference. There is a significant difference,
Congressman, as I suspect you know, between what we dealt with
in Love and what we are dealing with here.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. There is, yes, sir, but my
concern is I think there are a lot of socially disadvantaged
farmers. I think there are a lot of small farmers. I think
there are a lot of people that need the help, and my concern is
when we start to group certain people out because of the color
of their skin, then it becomes harder to get anything done. If
it is not equitable and it is not inclusive, then by
definition, it is discriminatory. And when it is discrimination
based on the color of someone's skin, then it is racist. That
is just my personal belief, and I think most people would
accept that definition.
So, one last question for you, Secretary Vilsack. Would you
commit to me that only American farmers would receive relief
under Section 1005, and not foreign nationals?
Secretary Vilsack. I can't commit to that, Congressman,
because that is not what the law that has been passed and
signed by the President says, as you well know.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. So, you are going to----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, let me finish. It is important for
people to understand that contained within the definitions
covered by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 are people that
legitimately are entitled to borrow money from the FSA as a
result of actions that were taken in 1984 when Jesse Helms was
the Chair of the Agriculture Committee and Ronald Reagan was
President that opened up the opportunity at USDA to work with
folks who were not citizens, but who were legitimately here.
So, to the extent that Congress passing the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 includes all of those folks, that is what I am
mandated to do and that is what we will do. We will follow the
law. I would expect that you would want me to do that.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. You are going to pay off the
loans for foreign nationals, but you will not pay off the
loans----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank
you very much, Mr. Scott, for your questions.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms.
Adams, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member, as well for hosting the hearing today, and to all of
our witnesses. Thank you for your personal and compelling
testimony.
This is, as our Chairman said, a landmark hearing. The need
for Federal support for Black farmers cannot be overstated. I
want to just put on the record, I am a proud graduate twice of
an 1890, North Carolina A&T. But particularly because the most
recent statistics from USDA make it clear that Black producers
were not served by the last Administration's COVID relief
programs. That is why last month I introduced the House version
of the Justice for Black Farmers Act, H.R. 1393, to address
discrimination at USDA, to provide debt relief, and to support
a new generation of Black farmers. It was good to speak with
you, Secretary, and with you as well, Mr. Boyd, just a day or 2
ago.
I am proudly a supporter of the debt forgiveness for
farmers of color in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some
of my colleagues, though, on the other side have raised
questions about the constitutionality of that provision. But we
have studied the Constitution. We know that race-based actions
by the government are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.
And in its 1995 Adarand decision, the Supreme Court held that
government may use race-based remedies that are narrowly
tailored to respond to the practice and effects of racial
discrimination. After the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Department of Justice issued a legal memo which noted that
Congress may be entitled to deference when it acts on the basis
of race to remedy the effects of discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit for the
record a copy of that 1995 memo.
[The memorandum referred to is located on p. 324.]
Ms. Adams. And that is what we have--thank you--and that is
what we have in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: Congress
narrowly tailoring legislation to address well-documented
racial discrimination against farmers of color.
Mr. Secretary, my question for you--and thank you for your
testimony. We have been talking about USDA's discrimination
against Black farmers and other farmers of color for decades
now. In 1988, Congress tried to address it by requiring USDA to
set target participation rates for farmers of color in farm
loan programs, but target participation rates and other
important programs like the 2501 Program are limited in scope,
and haven't fully addressed the barriers faced by our Black
farmers. In the past 5 years, the number of direct farm loans
to Black producers decreased by nearly 50 percent from 945 to
460.
Mr. Secretary, what do you think might account for this
steep drop in direct farm loans to Black producers, and what
steps is USDA willing to take to increase that participation?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I am not quite sure why
during the Trump Administration the number of loans decreased,
but what I can tell you is I think it is a combination of
factors that we have to focus on. First, we have to have people
in the Farm Service Agency offices and in the county committees
that reflect the population that they serve. When I was
Secretary the last time, I did, for the first time ever,
appoint minority members to county committees that did not have
minority membership. I think that is important that we take a
look at that county committee structure. I think it is
important, as I said earlier, to connect with community
building organizations to make sure that outreach is taking
place.
One of the problems with COVID relief is I don't--we are
pretty convinced that the outreach to the socially
disadvantaged population was not what it needed to be, which is
why we announced yesterday as part of the CFAP announcement an
effort to try to expand outreach and to reopen CFAP 2 to give
socially disadvantaged farmers greater opportunity to apply.
So, it is outreach.
Ms. Adams. Okay, go ahead.
Secretary Vilsack. I am sorry. It is outreach, and it is
also accountability. Reports to me directly, keeping an eye on
precisely how much progress we are making, and if we are not
making progress, demanding some accountability and reasoning
why. There is a lot more to this, which I will talk to you
about offline.
Ms. Adams. Right. Let me quickly ask you, in the plan,
Congress provided for a new equity commission to address racial
discrimination. We do need individuals on the commission who
bring fresh eyes to the problems, and so, I wanted you to share
your plans to ensure that congressional and stakeholder input
would be used in establishing the commission. I am not sure if
I am out of time.
Secretary Vilsack. We are going to follow FACA,
Congresswoman. We are going to make sure that Congress and
everyone else has an understanding of participation. You can be
assured that we will follow the rules and regulations of FACA.
Ms. Adams. Okay, great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of time. I am going to
submit my other questions to the other witnesses.
The Chairman. That will be fine.
I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
DesJarlais, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
holding this important hearing today, and it is always
disturbing to hear issues of discrimination. I feel for the
people and the stories that I was told today.
I did want to mention, there was a comment about Secretary
Perdue. I am sorry, in Tennessee, everything is in bloom, so
forgive the voice and the allergies. But Secretary Perdue was a
great Agriculture Secretary and great to work with, and I think
when he said that you need to go big, that was probably a
comment--if you are a mom-and-pop store, it is hard to compete
against Walmart. If you are a hardware store, it is hard to
compete against Lowes and Home Depot. And I would just say that
knowing Secretary Perdue, he did not mean that in any old
fashion.
I am also very appreciative to be able to work again with
Secretary Vilsack. I am much appreciative for him reaching out
to Members of the Agriculture Committee. Not all Secretaries
take time to do that, so thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for
that.
I think this hearing could have been better today if
alongside these witnesses were witnesses that were Hispanic and
other people--anyone who has been discriminated against,
because farmers of every race, color, national origin, gender,
and religion are struggling. The U.S. farmers are saddled with
near-record debt. There is high suicide rate among families and
farmers who are losing their livelihood.
It is a little troubling with some of the legislation that
has been put forth to have to see what is happening, and then
come back to my district. I can put the camera out my back
door. There is cattle grazing, there are row crops. It is a
rural area. There are small farmers, and they are struggling,
too. It is hard for me to tell them that there is help on the
way, but only if you are a certain skin color. It seems like
that is discrimination in itself. And I would think that the
panelists and witnesses today didn't like the way they were
treated, and wouldn't want other people to be treated that way,
either. It seems like what Austin Scott was saying where
foreign nationalists can get money under this COVID plan, but
not White women. That would bother a lot of people. I know that
he didn't get to finish that line of questioning, but
discrimination in this country is already illegal, as it should
be, and it is the job of the courts to rule on discrimination
and award damages, not Congress.
We saw the $2.3 billion go out to farmers in the Pigford
settlement with dubious results. Now we have the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that includes language for loan
forgiveness for socially disadvantaged farmers, except the ones
that Austin spoke of, for up to 120 percent of the outstanding
debt.
Secretary Vilsack, did you feel that USDA was
discriminatory while you were the head of the agency under the
Obama Administration?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I am certain that there
were times and circumstances where people who were of color,
Black producers, Hispanic producers were not treated as fairly
or as equitably as they should have been when I was Secretary.
We have over 4,000 offices. We have 100,000 folks working at
USDA, so I am not surprised if there were circumstances.
What we did do, however, was we began a process which we
are going to continue and deepen in cultural transformation so
that the number of discriminatory actions was reduced and
ultimately got to zero. We are going to keep a record of EEO
complaints and program complaints, and make sure that if there
was a spike in those complaints, we would find out why and take
action to solve.
And I will tell you, sir, with all due respect to this
discussion, I think people are losing sight of the fact that
the Pigford case was designed to respond to specific acts of
discrimination and compensate for this. The American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 was designed to do two things: first, to deal
with the cumulative impact of discrimination over time where
some people had the full range of the suite of programs at USDA
and were able to grow and expand, and others did not. Just to
give you an example, CFAP 1 and CFAP 2. Of those who have been
self-identified Black farmers received $20 million----
Mr. DesJarlais. I just wanted to finish with I want us all
to be aware, as we try to unite as a nation, that actions like
Senator Hirono and Senator Duckworth in the Senate just
recently said they wouldn't vote for nominees unless they were
diverse. That is discrimination in itself. We need to get rid
of all discrimination. We need to come together as a people. I
hope our panelists agree. That is what Mr. King would have
wanted, and that is where we need to go. And so, we need to be
careful of that moving forward.
I am sorry to interrupt you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you so much there for your testimony.
Let me make this brief announcement before we move to our
next Member to be recognized. I want to make all of our Members
aware that the Committee will take a short 15 minute recess
following this question period with the gentlelady from
Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes. Immediately after that, we will take a
15 minute recess, and then we will come back.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs.
Hayes, for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here.
I just want to add that no one on this Committee or in
Congress woke up and just decided let's send relief only to
Black farmers or have this hearing. This is the result of years
of pervasive discrimination and a problem that has existed that
we in Congress recognize we have an obligation to address. This
isn't about what Dr. King would have wanted or we are leaving
other groups out. It is about we are addressing an area of need
that has gone unaddressed for so many years.
This is a pervasive problem, even in my district in
Connecticut, which is not generally seen as an agrarian
district. But according to the Northeast Farmers of Color Land
Trust, White landowners currently control about 95 to 98
percent of the farmland in the United States, and nearly 100
percent in the Northeast. This stark disparity in land
ownership is reflected in the demographics of Connecticut
farmers. Non-White farmers represent just two percent of
farmers in the state according to our Census Bureau, which is
an extremely low number when considering non-White communities
represent nearly 35 percent of the state's overall population.
I am happy that we are here today brainstorming solutions
to address this, and not taking the ostrich approach and
sticking our head in the sand and pretending that the problem
does not exist.
My question is for you, Mr. Boyd. Can you speak to the
disparities between Black farmers and their White counterparts
in accessing subsidies, capital, and land for their farms?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, I can, and thank you very much for the
comments.
I also would like to take a step back and address the Sonny
Perdue issue, because I was the one that stated that at the
meeting I had with him. I do believe that he meant every word
of it. He also said if you wanted to know where Blacks are, go
to TSA and look at New York City and Atlanta, Georgia. And
based on all my experience of meeting with Agriculture
Secretaries, going back to the Carter Administration, that was
my very first meeting--my worst meeting in history with the
Agriculture Secretary.
As it relates to farm subsidies, 90 percent of all
subsidies--the top ten percent receive on average $118,000, the
bottom 80 percent annually in Mecklenburg County, Virginia
receive about $700 annually. When you look at how we
participated in the Trump Administration, the $29 billion that
was doled out in those payments, Black farmers received 0.05
percent. Those numbers of people are dramatic, and if I can't
compete as far as staying in the farm subsidy program and
receive farm subsidies the way that my White counterparts do, I
can't compete. I can't pay the land rent and so on and so
forth.
So, this hasn't just begun, people. This has been going on
for decades, for decades. When you hear people say about the
relief that is out there now, Congresswoman, that is--it is a
new loan program is what I have been watching on the news. This
is a new loan program that excludes Whites, White farmers. That
is not true. It is debt relief, and as Secretary Vilsack
already said, only for those farmers that already have loans on
the books. It is not a new loan. It doesn't exclude Whites. We
simply are trying to level the playing field, and the way to do
that is to have full transparency. By having transparency----
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd. Yes. By having transparency, we can fix a whole
lot of this.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I am happy that you mentioned
transparency. The time goes by so quickly, but the disparities
that you just highlighted really stress the need for a robust,
effective civil rights office within the United States
Department of Agriculture due to this long history of civil
rights cases being backed up in the USDA.
With the 2008 Farm Bill, it required a report to Congress
describing the number of civil rights complaints filed against
the USDA, the length of time it took to process those
complaints, and any follow up for the resolution. The average
complaint was resolved in what amounted to about 6 years. I
know we really don't have time to address this, but Secretary
Vilsack, I hope that you can really think about plans for
improving the process for addressing civil rights cases within
the USDA, and making sure that we are providing equitable
access to all farmers. Our job here is to help all farmers, but
we also have a responsibility to address those areas of
greatest concern and need, and right now, Black farmers happens
to be one of those areas.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Committee will now stand in recess until 2:15.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will now return to order.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs.
Hartzler, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. Thank you to all our witnesses. I also want to thank
Secretary Vilsack for reaching out to us Members of the
Agriculture Committee to hear our ideas and concerns in
agriculture and where we need to go. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow up on some of your comments
in your opening statement about some of the challenges of
rolling out this provision, and specifically, I have been
hearing from some banks--and you did reference that you don't
know how you are going to deal with the prepayment penalty. But
I am hearing that banks that originate FSA guaranteed farm
loans have raised concerns about the unintended consequences
that the prepayment of these loans will have on lenders,
including their ability to make and service these loans in the
future. Can you go into more detail about what USDA is going to
do to work with these banks to mitigate the costs and to
provide certainty for our farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, thank you very much for the
question. I think the first thing is we need to have a very
detailed understanding of precisely what concerns they have and
why they have them. I have asked the team to reach out to and
to identify those loans that potentially have prepayment
issues, reach out to the banks, ask for the documentation of
the prepayment penalties, and begin a conversation and
discussion in terms of how that is to be handled.
It is going to take, obviously, a little time to do this,
but we are going to be focused on making sure we put adequate
staff behind this effort to get it done, and as I said, as
quickly as possible, as thoughtfully as possible, and as
efficiently as possible.
Mrs. Hartzler. Right. How many of these loans are there
that you will be forgiving?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I don't think we necessarily know
precisely how many we--I am going to give you a range. Our best
knowledge and best information today is somewhere between
13,000 and 15,000 loans that are potentially impacted by this.
It could be more, it could be less, but I think it is somewhere
in that neighborhood.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay, very good. Thank you so much.
I wanted to follow up with Philip Haynie. Thank you so much
for your passionate testimony.
I was concerned to hear about how you said you can't access
USDA irrigation funds and you can't participate in land
leveling programs like other farmers. I just wonder, could you
share more about what happened or how come you couldn't? What
happened there?
Mr. Haynie. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
A lot of Black farmers throughout the Delta where there are
common practices in place for land leveling and irrigation.
These programs that are issued by USDA NRCS, oftentimes they
are told they weren't available to them. They are competing
against neighbors side-by-side, and they often find themselves
on an island where they are a non-irrigated farm, and they have
irrigated farmers on all four sides of them.
So, the practices of putting irrigation on their farms is
something that needs to be implemented through the USDA, and
there should be cost-shares allowing for that.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. Could you tell me more though--you
were told or you know some farmers that were told that these
aren't available to you?
Mr. Haynie. Yes, oftentimes farmers go in to apply for
these programs and they are told that there are no funds
available to assist them with that. The cost-share that is
available for the EQIP Program for land leveling and
irrigation, those funds often dry up, and at the cost of
implementing these improvements on their farms, they aren't
able to forebear them, unlike their neighbors who were able to
get these programs implemented during the crux of
discrimination at USDA back in the 1980s.
These farmers are still without, and their neighbors are
with irrigation right beside them.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. The problem is that the EQIP funds
have run out when you have gone in and asked, and they didn't
have the funds available, or the matching requirement was the
problem. Is that what I am hearing?
Mr. Haynie. Well, oftentimes farmers are told there are
funds not available, and that may not be the case. I don't
think there is enough oversight in that issuance of those
subsidy programs for land leveling and irrigation for
improvements on the farm. Oftentimes, that pot runs out of
money very soon and farmers have to wait for it to be refilled.
Mrs. Hartzler. Got you.
Mr. Haynie. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yes, thank you. I think that is really
helpful we get to the bottom of what is being alleged happened
here.
I wanted to ask Mr. Boyd--well, I only have 12 seconds.
Okay. I appreciate y'all's testimony.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to the witnesses.
I have actually been in one of my other committees, so I
have missed all of your wonderful questions and answers, but I
really do appreciate that you are all here, and I certainly
appreciated reading your testimony.
Mr. Rowe, I am particularly interested in you being an
organic farmer, and I know that you are very focused on soil
health and carbon sequestration, which is certainly a topic of
this Committee and one moving forward.
As the USDA considers possible initiatives to encourage
farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices, what
recommendations would you make to Secretary Vilsack or the
Members of this Committee to make sure that you and other Black
farmers are able to benefit?
Mr. Rowe. Okay. Can you repeat that question one more time?
Can you repeat the question one more time?
Ms. Pingree. Oh, absolutely. As you are an organic farmer,
I know you are very focused and you have educational background
in soil health, and because this Committee is focused on soil
health and carbon sequestration and some interesting new
initiatives to encourage farmers to adopt climate-friendly
practices, I am wondering what recommendations you would make
to the Secretary and to this Committee to make sure that you
and other Black farmers are able to benefit from future
initiatives?
Mr. Rowe. Okay. In order for you to obtain your
certification to be organic certified, you have to follow
strict guidelines on how--what you put into your soil, what
equipment used and stuff like that. I feel like if you apply
that to farming, period, it would help with a lot of the stuff
when it comes to, like, climate change, just because the carbon
that comes out of the soil, organic practices are a way to make
sure we are staying healthy, and also keeping the environment
healthy. As you know, conventional farming takes a lot of
chemicals and a lot of stuff to make stuff grow. But that
affects us as humans, it affects the air, and the pollution,
and stuff like that. I would recommend more observing the
organic standards and qualifications you need to be organic
certified. That is something that I can--if I had something
just to say, that would be my opinion on it.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you. I have spent some time as a
certified organic farmer, so I certainly sympathize with the
challenges and the expenses of facing that so more support is
important.
Secretary Vilsack, I am sorry I have not been able to hear
most of the hearing, but I did hear your opening remarks and I
do appreciate you returning, particularly at such a challenging
time. Welcome back as Secretary, again, for Agriculture.
I know a lot of your agenda will be around some very
interesting climate initiatives, soil health, the whole variety
of things that you have already talked about. How do you make
sure that small to medium-sized farmers, and particularly Black
farmers, are able to participate and this doesn't just become
another program that only applies to the large farmers or those
that have the means to apply for a grant or any of the
complications that might get in the way?
Secretary Vilsack. Quickly, I would respond three ways.
First, I have Dr. Dewayne Goldmon in my office now as the
Senior Advisor on Equity. Part of his responsibility is to put
an equity lens on everything that we do, and to encourage those
who are developing these programs to make sure that there is an
equity lens when the program is being developed.
Second, is to make sure that we are keeping track of the
resources that are being allocated in various programs, and how
much of it is, in fact, going to socially disadvantaged
producers. If we see, as we saw with COVID, some imbalance, we
can obviously make corrections. We can ask questions about
that.
I think it is also important for us to have partners who
can help us with outreach. Sometimes, it is not that people
don't want to help, it is that people don't know that they need
the help or don't know where to go to get the help. As has been
indicated earlier, there is a trust issue. I think we have to
build trust, and I think the way to do that is by connecting
ourselves with community building organizations that are
already trusted to get the word out.
I think it is also making sure that as we put our budgets
together, we look at places and programs that we know will be
most helpful. One of the purposes of this hearing--I am taking
notes right now on the suggestions that people are making.
Obviously, that is going to impact and affect as we make future
budget decisions. It is a combination of all of those things
and basically saying to the folks--and I will end with this.
Basically saying to your team this is a priority, and it needs
to be reflected in every decision you make. You need to be able
to justify and explain how equity has been applied. The
President has been very clear about this. It is his expectation
that everything we do at USDA is done through an equity lens,
and I think that is a fair point and one that we are looking
forward to doing.
Ms. Pingree. Well, I certainly appreciate your answer
there, and the importance of all of the points that you have
mentioned, particularly around outreach, because we often find
that people have no idea that there are programs out there that
would benefit them. But also, I think the USDA having that
lens, we often write into a program that there should be a set
aside for this or a set aside for that, but clearly, it is
going to be far more effective if the USDA sees that as their
responsibility to make sure that the distribution is fair, and
particularly that underserved farmers have those opportunities.
I only have 7 seconds, so I will yield back.
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, we will also get some
suggestions from the Equity Commission in terms of overall
structure and strategy. That will be helpful as well.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson, and thank you to the witnesses and my good friend,
Secretary Vilsack, for being here today to discuss the impact
of racism in the United States and the work we must continue to
do to ensure there is equity across programs at the USDA.
As a former Chair of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,
Horticulture, and Research, I have spent a lot of my time in
Congress focused on the importance of our ag research and
extension programs, which should help serve farmers across the
board, and particularly minority and socially disadvantaged
farmers. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how we can
work to bolster extension programs, those that help serve
minority and socially disadvantaged farmers, in a way that
decreases barriers to access and increases participation in
USDA programs.
Mr. Rowe, thank you for being here today and for sharing
your experiences as a Black organic farmer. I was particularly
interested in your experience in navigating the new hemp
program, along with other USDA organic programs, which have
proved challenging for so many. Can you please share more
regarding the unique challenges you faced trying to navigate
the hemp program, specifically in light of the 2018 Farm Bill,
and what you need from us and the Department to ensure you have
certainty and access to profitable markets?
Mr. Rowe. Okay. It was a challenge doing the hemp because,
as you know, Georgia just got, we were just able to grow
organic hemp, or hemp in general. And a lot of farmers are
uneducated on it. Government assistance doesn't have a lot of
research on it also, so working with universities and doing
research on this new crop that just, that Georgia is just now
growing will also be helpful.
Some of the things that I was--as growing hemp my first
year, I knew as far as, like, diseases or what variety would
grow. Things like that a farmer didn't know, so having those
land-grant and research available for farmers to be able to
reach out. I know Fort Valley State University does a lot of
field research. Like they will have a field day where they will
do a particular crop and explain how to grow it, what it takes,
and all of that. If we could get something like that
implemented with the hemp program, it would be very helpful
because there is less knowledge on this new crop that just came
into Georgia.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Rowe. I would be interested in
keeping a working relationship with you as we move forward to
identify any other problems that you are experiencing in the
organic sector.
Secretary Vilsack, hey, great to see you again. I just
wanted to make sure that you and I have chatted about the work
across agencies and with the FDA that is needed to ensure that
we are providing regulatory certainty for hemp and organic
farmers, including Black, minority, and socially disadvantaged
farmers.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Congressman, I think our first
order we have to have our own house in order in terms of being
able to work effectively with other agencies, which is why it
was important for us to get the hemp rule out. It had been
stuck for a while. We are doing that. We are now in a position
to reach across to HHS and FDA to make sure that there is a
coordination. And frankly, you mentioned biotechnology. There
is obviously a need for us to coordinate effectively with both
FDA and EPA, and I expect to do that. We have to have a
process.
I would say in this day and age, with change rapidly
occurring so quickly, our regulatory processes have to keep
pace with the pace of change, and frankly, sometimes we
basically slow innovation down because our regulatory process
is not communicating effectively between agencies. That is
something we need to work on.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, sir, for that, and welcome
back. As I told you before, I look forward to working with you
again and congratulations on getting back into the USDA one
more time.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Davis. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms.
Kuster, for 5 minutes. I think you may be muted.
Ms. Kuster. I am just trying to get my mute off here. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Vilsack, we appreciate you
being here. Thank you for all the work that you are doing, and
I am grateful for the farmers and producers on the panel for
coming forward to share all of your challenges and insights.
Our country is in the midst of a reckoning on racial
justice and addressing systemic racism, and I think that is the
difference. This is not a question of simply prejudice or
discrimination. We need to go back to the beginning and the
racism since slavery that has led to Black farmers not even
being able to show title to their land.
This past year has not only brought a global pandemic, but
countless painful reminders that we still have so much work
ahead of us on equality and justice here in America, and as has
been discussed today, we have a glaring problem when it comes
to American agriculture. Instead of improving, the number of
Black farmers in our country and the amount of land they own
has shrunken dramatically and continues to decline, and we need
to ask why and make changes that will turn that trend around.
It is incumbent on Congress and the USDA to reverse this trend,
and ensure that our agriculture sector is diverse, and that
every single farmer and producer is treated with fairness and
equality.
So, let's make it clear. If Black farmers and socially
disadvantaged farmers are systematically driven out of our
culture, there would be horrible consequences for consumers and
growers across the country. We have to right these wrongs and
move forward together.
Mrs. Sherrod, as you noted in your testimony, Black farmers
are still impacted by discrimination because government
payments are tied to production. Systemic discrimination has
resulted in Black-owned farms being smaller than White farms,
so Black farmers typically receive smaller government payments.
From your experience, how can Congress help level the playing
field and make sure that Black farmers with smaller operations
aren't penalized when it comes to applying to the USDA?
The Chairman. You may need to unmute.
Ms. Kuster. Mrs. Sherrod? Did it go--no, I am sorry. That
was for Mrs. Sherrod.
The Chairman. Is it Sherrod, you mean?
Ms. Kuster. Mrs. Sherrod, yes, I am sorry.
The Chairman. All right. You may need to unmute. Okay. You
got it, Mrs. Sherrod.
Mrs. Sherrod. Okay. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. Yes, we can.
Mrs. Sherrod. All right. Let me say that, are we still
muted?
The Chairman. No, you are----
Ms. Kuster. No, you are good. We can hear you.
The Chairman. Now you are muted. Go back to where you were.
Mrs. Sherrod. Okay. Okay. Let me say that I have worked on
this issue for many, many years, almost 56 years. I have
actually gone from a period when I had to go in the office with
farmers because they were afraid to go--they couldn't speak up
for themselves, and I could speak for them and I could help
represent them. What that has done is in addition to farmers
trying and being denied, they don't feel there is a place for
them to go. We have to go back and try to help farmers
understand that this agency is there for them, because so many
of them think that is not the case. Many of them think like one
of my grandfathers, when he had the opportunity to try to apply
for money, he said I have never borrowed money from Farmers
Home Administration, because it is just a way to take a Black
farmer's land. That has proven to be true.
You were breaking up so I didn't hear all of your question,
but let me say, we have to go back and make people feel that
this is a place they can come to for help.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, thank you so much.
Mr. Boyd, could you speak to the unique challenges that you
have seen Black farmers with smaller farms face when it comes
to ensuring that their land can be passed to the next
generation?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, this has been a difficult task. One of the
challenges is access to credit. Black farmers simply don't have
access to credit. USDA has been played into that, and also the
top ten banks, and we haven't got to talk about corporate
America and the discrimination that Black farmers face there in
companies like Monsanto, John Deere, PepsiCo, all have failed
to deliver contracts and services to Black farmers. These are
things that are coupled all together that has affected us.
USDA certificates of liens that was on my property when I
had debt relief at the United States Department of--I was one
of the first Black farmers to be offered debt relief in the
settlement agreement. Those liens remained----
The Chairman. The time of the----
Mr. Boyd.--on my farm for over 20 years until we were able
to try to purchase another farm. We had to hire a law firm to
get those liens off of my farm.
The Chairman. Yes. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate
them, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Kuster.
I know recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon,
for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panelists today and each of you. We appreciate reaching out
across the aisle. I also appreciated the opportunity to meet
with John Boyd.
There is no doubt that our African American farmers
following reconstruction were faced with discrimination and
prejudice extending for over a century.
Mrs. Sherrod, your testimony mentions that the Pigford
settlement did not bring about systematic change. Deep rooted
changes to a system or an agency do take time. Have there been
any improvements, to your knowledge, that can lead to the
systematic change that you are referencing? Thank you.
Mr. Boyd. Basically, what the lawsuit did was really bring
about discrimination issues to the Department of Agriculture,
but many of the issues that we were--that was a part of the
lawsuit never went to Black farmers, such as injunctive relief
such as debt write down, land out of Federal inventory. None of
the farmers received those things, and that is why it is
vitally important that we have this measure.
So many people think that it is a new issue. It is not a
new issue. We asked for debt relief in the actual lawsuit, and
also, we need transparency. If we want to fix any of this, we
need transparency to see who is getting what, and what
programs, such as farm subsidies. If we had those real numbers,
this hearing would be a lot clearer today. We would be able to
say this race received this amount of subsidies. Black farmers
received this amount. We need full transparency, and for those
Committee Members that are here today, we should really take a
pretty good look at that.
And also, those persons who were found guilty of
discrimination were never fired or penalized. As you heard Mrs.
Sherrod testify, she was the only one who got fired. How in the
world can you have two settlements and all of those people that
were investigated that were found guilty of discrimination, and
nobody was fired? And that is a shame for the taxpayers who had
to pay for that. We need to look at those people who--past and
present who are still working at USDA, 30 year bureaucrats who
still have their jobs. Black farmers lost their land and farms,
but these people still have their jobs.
I would like to work with the Committee to move forward on
a transparency measure.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
I was also asking Mrs. Sherrod if she sees the systematic
change that does take a long time to do. Is she seeing progress
in the systematic change in the agencies she is working in?
Mrs. Sherrod. Let me say that there, there has been some
change, but not nearly enough to make up for what has been
done. And if you keep messing with someone and they keep
getting hurt, they eventually stop going in that direction. We
have so many farmers who need to go to the agency and they
can't and don't feel they should go to the agency because they
have never been able to get help there. And if it were not for
groups like us, even working with Mr. Sedrick Rowe and others
to try to help navigate that for them, there is just no way
they will ever get help.
The culture there is changing some, because I have been at
this 50+ years, but I haven't seen enough change.
Mr. Bacon. Well, thank you, Mrs. Sherrod, and I think you
have a good point. If your grandfather tells you something and
your father tells you something, you learn not to do so.
With my remaining minute, I got another follow-up for Mr.
Boyd. You highlighted the need to improve technical assistance
and outreach to Black farmers. Are you starting to see that
now? Are we making progress there? Thank you.
Mr. Boyd. I believe that--and thank you, Congressman, for
the question. I believe that the mechanism that is on the table
right now in the Farmers of Color Act, the $1 billion, the
Secretary and his team should reach out and work with
organizations like the National Black Farmers Association and
all of the other panelists that are here today. We have a
unique opportunity to fix outreach and technical assistance in
this measure, something that has been lacking, as you heard my
colleagues testify to, in the Section 2501 Program. This is the
opportunity right now to fix that. Where organizations like
ours, we need resources. Since this bill has been announced,
our phones are ringing off the hook for farmers that are
looking for direction. They want to know how this debt relief
is going to be paid out, how it is going to apply to them, and
we haven't heard enough yet from the Administration. I would
like to ask Secretary Vilsack--he mentioned the Commission. Who
is going to be on the Commission?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Bustos,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott, and let me
just say thank you for holding this very, very important
hearing today. I want to thank all of our witnesses. You have
all done a wonderful job. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being
here.
I want to start out with a question for you, sir, and I
actually am going to use some facts that Mr. Boyd shared in his
opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Boyd, for laying the picture
out for what Black farmers in America have gone through. The
numbers have fallen dramatically. As Mr. Boyd pointed out, from
900,000 in 1920 to less than 50,000 today. Mr. Boyd also
pointed out that the amount of land that is farmed by Black
farmers has fallen from 41 million acres to less than 5 million
acres today. So, again, Mr. Boyd, thank you for laying that
out. It helps us get an understanding that we got something
going wrong here.
Secretary Vilsack, if I may, what steps can Congress take
to help you at the Department of Agriculture to ensure that
Black farmers get involved in and remain in agriculture?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think you have taken a very
important and first step with the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021. The debt relief process, as we have talked about, is an
important step. The Equity Commission which we will set up
pursuant to congressional directive with the FACA, we have to
go through that process to get committee members appointed, is
going to be very helpful to identify systemic barriers that
exist from an external view. We have a working group inside
USDA focused on internally examining this.
I think Mr. Boyd is right about the $1 billion. There is
tremendous opportunity there, not only to improve outreach, but
also to look at ways in which we can do better marketing
assistance for farmers in that local and regional food system
that they need to be part of, and also creating opportunities
potentially for more market opportunities and more land access.
I think Congress could help us by talking to other Federal
agencies, in addition to the USDA, that have land ownership. I
am thinking of the Department of Defense, for example. They
have a lot of land that surrounds a lot of the military
installations. A lot of that land is in rural communities. A
lot of that land is farmable. Where and who do they have
farming that land? Can that be something that could potentially
be made available to minority and socially disadvantaged and
beginning farmers? That is one thing I think Congress could
ask. And certainly to the extent that you would provide the
resources for us at USDA, our budgets over the course of the
last several years have been cut, which makes it harder for us
to have the people and the personnel necessary to do the job.
Hopefully we will see some additional support and help on the
operations side of the budget.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I appreciate
that innovative approach that we could take a look at.
So, we know that obviously--again, this has been spelled
out very clearly. We need to do more to level the playing field
between Black farmers and White farmers, including greater
transparency in subsidy and loan programs. That has been
discussed today. We need to improve access to land, as you just
talked about, Mr. Secretary, and credit and improve our
outreach to Black farmers. You just laid that out very nicely.
I am lucky enough to be Chair of the General Farm
Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee this congressional
session, and I know that these are all issues that important to
me as we get to work on our agenda this Congress and gear up
for the next farm bill.
So, this question is actually to whoever would like to
answer it among the panelists, and Mr. Boyd, I am going to ask
you to start. But what have your experiences been with the
commodity programs at USDA? Again, this falls under the
Subcommittee that I will be chairing. And the second part of
that is what steps can Congress take to ensure that Black
farmers feel welcome at the USDA?
Mr. Boyd. Well, one thing I would do--and I have said this
to every Member of Congress--and thank you for taking the time
to speak with me the other day----
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd. Is that, Mr. Secretary, Black farmers need to
hear from you, that USDA is open for business for Black
farmers, open for business for farmers of color, Native
American, women, all of these persons of color. Make that
announcement and make it with conviction, because we are going
to have to get Black farmers reintegrated back into USDA,
because as you heard Mrs. Sherrod and my other colleagues say
today, Black farmers don't trust the United States Department
of Agriculture, which has really hurt us in participation, and
it is because of all the discrimination that I and others have
faced. And we also need to do more to get new and beginning
farmers into farm programs at USDA, and remove the 3 year
requirement so that Black farmers and other new and beginning
farmers can actually take part into the USDA programs there.
Removing that 3 year barrier has been a big problem, and I
would like to work with you guys to remove that.
Mrs. Bustos. I wish I had time to listen to everybody, but
my time has expired.
Secretary Vilsack, I do want to follow up on your idea with
the Department of Defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Absolutely.
I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking
Member Thompson for putting on this informative hearing.
I am going to start with the Office of Partnerships and
Public Engagement, and mention that they hosted last year 50
statewide community prosperity summits to folks on solutions to
challenges facing rural and underserved communities, and
connect them to the education, tools, and resources available
to them through the USDA programs and initiatives.
In 2020, as an example, they connected hundreds of faith-
based as well as youth as well as military and community
organizations to distributors to form partnerships through the
Farmers to Families Food Box Program during COVID-19.
I guess my first question is going to go Mr. and Mrs.
Cotton. In your testimony, you mentioned USDA's Office of
Partnerships and Public Engagement. Can you elaborate more on
your experience with the Faith Fellows training you attended in
Washington, D.C., and how that experience contributed to your
interactions with the USDA, Mr. and Mrs. Cotton?
Mrs. Cotton. Well, thank you, sir, for this opportunity and
the question.
By being at the Faith Fellows inaugural training, we met
the Convoy of Hope. We also met City Serve. We also met Islamic
Relief USA. We met those various organizations. When we came
back to Oklahoma, we reached out to Convoy of Hope and then
subsequently had meetings with them. After those meetings, then
we rented us a big semi-truck and we drove to Missouri to pick
up our first food.
In the interim, as we began to distribute food, we learned
that there was a hub here in Oklahoma called NorthStar Bridge
for Convoy of Hope, and from NorthStar Bridge, we began to pick
up food. First in a car, then a truck, then a horse trailer,
14, then a 20 horse trailer. After the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program started, NorthStar Bridge saw that we were
serious about helping our community. They began to distribute
trucks to us. We were receiving up to four semi-trucks a week
in our small rural area.
The people come because we have been consistent. They come
because they trust. There has not been any training in what we
do. We have been in the service of the Lord for most of our
lives. It is just reaching people, helping people, being humble
servants.
And so, because the government realized that faith-based
entities are the bottom kind of rung of the ladder for
individuals who have their trust in someone, they began to use
the Faith Fellows as a pinpoint for these activities. The thing
of it is, is that it was a truck to trunk program, and often,
the vendors across the U.S., as they received these fundings to
distribute the food, were sending it out but that last mile
delivery, the people were not realizing any financial help from
it.
Today, as a matter of fact, we canceled two semi-trucks so
that we can be here today, all right? Tomorrow, we will have a
once-a-month senior program that we will distribute food there.
But this has created great opportunities for us to continue to
figure out how in the world we can get from busyness to actual
business in reaching our communities. My husband just said
community togetherness. In our community, the testimonies are a
mile long. That is basically what we have to offer on that.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack, would you care to comment about the
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement? I think you made
reference to that earlier. I can give you an opportunity to--we
have about 37 seconds, so----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it is an important integral part
of our effort to improve outreach, but I think we have to do
more in that area and we have to basically cast a much wider
net in terms of the partnerships that we are developing. I
think the opportunity for us at USDA starts with historically
Black colleges and minority-serving institutions, because they
have an incredible network and I think we need to tap into that
network more effectively and more efficiently than we have in
the past. That is where I would start.
Mr. Baird. I have about 4 seconds left, and I just have to
put a plug in for the land-grant universities and the
cooperative extension service, because they played a vital role
over the years in making sure we got the research information
out to these rural communities.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you are ready to put the hammer
on because I have reached my time, so thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman realizing his time
had expired.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the United States
Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today, and
particularly, thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for your commitment
to the issues that we are addressing in this hearing, which has
long been overdue at the full Committee level. I want to also
just applaud my colleagues for their patience and their
steadfastness, and getting to the meat of the issues here in
this hearing.
Secretary Vilsack, one of the questions that I have is
related to the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program and CFAP 2
payments, which have been successfully compensated all
producers, at least partially, who have experienced unexpected
economic loss of costs due to the COVID-19 during the second
through fourth quarters of 2020. Are we aware or what are the
mechanisms and data that we have for--to know if CFAP 2 funds
have been distributed in a fair manner to every producer and
for every commodity sector that experienced COVID-19 related
costs? I ask that question in particular as you have shown
through your quick appointment to agriculture the disparity in
distribution to Black farmers in the other funding.
Secretary Vilsack. If you take a look at the payments that
have been made to those who have self-identified as White,
Black, and other socially disadvantaged categories, in CFAP 1
and CFAP 2, Black farmers would have received approximately $20
to $21 million. White men and women farmers would have received
$5.6 billion. That is why I think that one of the things that
you did in the American Rescue Plan was to essentially
understand and appreciate the disparity in terms of how the
COVID relief was distributed in terms of how much went to White
farmers and how much went to socially disadvantaged farmers.
And part of what you have done is you basically created a
better sense of balance, if you will, in the COVID relief
efforts. We tried to complement that recently with the
announcement that we are going to additional outreach on CFAP 2
to make sure that those socially disadvantaged producers that
have not yet applied for the ability to participate in the
program are given a 60 day opportunity to do so. And the hope
is with additional outreach, that we will see more applications
from socially disadvantaged producers.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
As follow-up to that question, sir, Mr. Secretary, with
this debt relief that has been provided for Black farmers, is
there an assumption or shouldn't there be an assumption that
other tacit forms of discrimination at the Department need to
be corrected, and what is being done to identify what those
other areas might have been, and how they can be rectified and
monitored?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are three parts to the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. We talked about debt relief
and we have also talked about the billion dollars that could
potentially increase outreach, land access, and financial
marketing.
The third element is the Equity Commission, and this
Commission is going to be an external commission that is going
to take a detailed look at every single aspect of USDA's
activities to determine and to identify those systemic barriers
that may exist and the way in which programs are operated.
At the same time that that is going on, we are also going
to have, pursuant to President Biden's Executive Order, an
internal review. We already have a working group that has been
established. They have already begun the process of assessing
our benefits, our services, our contracts, and our
procurements. I would put particular emphasis in response to
your question on the issue of contracts and procurements as we
are looking at ways of increasing marketing opportunities,
especially for small and mid-sized operators, for socially
disadvantaged farmers, for beginning farmers, the opportunity
to use Federal purchasing power, the procurement power of the
Federal Government may be a strategy that will provide some
quick wins, if you will, in terms of market access. And that is
something I hope our team will be taking a very close look at.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
And as a final thought, in having conversations with some
of the witnesses prior to the hearing today, I am particularly
moved by and concerned with regard to discussions with Mr. Boyd
where he talked about not necessarily just at the Department of
Agriculture, but in the whole life cycle of Black farming,
issues of access to farm credit, to bank loans, even to have
those companies who they rely on for equipment to have
different policies and leverages for Black farmers than they do
for others. Have you been thinking of or would you be willing
to sit with us as legislators to come up with ways to both
incentivize those organizations and those outside and private
entities to support Black farming, to grow it, as well as to
find ways to enforce Federal law against discrimination and to
support them?
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the----
Ms. Plaskett. May he answer the question, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman.--gentleman from South Dakota.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I will just respond yes to
your question, Congresswoman.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes, and also, Mr. Secretary, you can respond
more in writing for the record.
I apologize to everyone, but we are trying to get everyone
in, and so, I hope you will help me here. I want to hear from
everybody, too. And perhaps, Mr. Boyd can relate to your
question when he is recognized again.
Thank you for your consideration, Members.
I now recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will
direct my comments and questions to Secretary Vilsack.
I would first note, sir, that you have invested a
remarkable amount of time already in speaking with me and other
Members of the Committee since you were sworn in, so thanks for
that. I think it shows an authenticity and an earnestness on
your part to do this work together, and I think this Committee
hearing has been fantastic as we talk about how to make sure
that we are serving all of agriculture and all producers. It
has been a wonderful hearing.
And in that vein, I want to call out and commend USDA, sir,
for the appointment of Zach Ducheneaux as Administrator of the
Farm Service Agency. Mr. Ducheneaux has been an incredible
advocate for South Dakota agriculture, for Tribal agriculture,
for socially disadvantaged farmers. He is an enrolled member at
Cheyenne River, and he is going to be really good at the job.
And so, thank you to USDA for walking your interest in
diversity, sir, on that front.
The one question I have for you, Mr. Secretary, follows up
on my March 3 letter and gives you a little real time update
related to my concerns with the U.S. Forest Service
recommendation to reduce the Timber Sale Program. And there is
a real impact here on socially disadvantaged people, because a
huge portion of the forestry workers who are impacted are
Latino and Latina. And the update is just this week in Hill
City, and that is a town of about 1,000 in the Black Hills of
South Dakota, a large sawmill has announced that it is closing.
Forty percent of those 120 employees are Hispanic. That comes
the same week that we have the Forest Service announce via a
general technical report that they think that the timber
harvest coming out of the Black Hills should be reduced by 50
or 60 percent. And we know that when you lose those jobs from
socially disadvantaged people in forestry, in timber, they are
highly unlikely to come back. That capacity doesn't come back
very easily. We have seen that across the country.
And so, I just want to make sure, sir, that that is on your
front burner, and just asking for a commitment to work with you
and the Forest Service in continuing to analyze the science
behind these studies. We want to make sure that when we have
socially disadvantaged employees, they have an opportunity to
keep those good paying jobs and help out their communities. Any
thoughts, sir?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I certainly appreciate the
importance of outreach and connection with stakeholders who
have a strong interest, as you have expressed, in the Black
Hills. I would hope that our Forest Service--and I believe our
Forest Service will continue to be engaged in continued
collaboration.
As you have indicated, the scientists from the Northern
Research Station's Forest Inventory and Analysis program
recently concluded their study. I would point out that this is
a scientific document. It is not a policy or decision document,
so I think it is important to note that to your point of
whether or not there are other considerations or other science
or other information that needs to be considered. Obviously, I
think we need to take everything into consideration before any
specific decisions are made.
It is a large body of science, obviously, that is now
available to managers in the Black Hills. They can take a look
at it. They can respond to it. They can react to it, and then
it will give us the opportunity to sort of take into
consideration as we finalize the general technical report.
Hopefully, folks are going to provide us the input necessary
for us to ultimately make the very best decision for folks in
that area.
Let me just simply say, however, this is a very difficult
issue generally, this issue of timber and this issue of timber
sales and mills. And we have to figure out ways in which we can
increase market opportunity for forest and wood products across
the board. Whether it is using cross-laminated timber to build
tall buildings, or some other mechanism, because we want to
make sure that we maintain the carbon that is stored in those
trees as opposed to, unfortunately and tragically, watching too
much of it burn up in fires that we have seen that have been
historic.
Mr. Johnson. I think that is well said, sir, and we know
that a managed forest is a healthy forest. I liked your
problem-solving approach.
With the time that I have left, I will just note that you
are right. It is a scientific document. I think there is an
opportunity for entrepreneurial policymakers like you and me to
try and find some different solutions. For instance, that
scientific report only really analyzes the timber available in
suitable timberlands, meaning areas that have traditionally
been forested, or rather, been harvested. If we can get your
team the resources they need to build additional timber roads,
that is going to give us new areas of the forest. That is going
to give us new jobs, including for these socially disadvantaged
people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I would
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of you
for participating today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing.
In my district, we have over 800 Latino farmers, and I have
had the opportunity to speak with some of them about the
discriminatory barriers that they face every day, such as
language barriers, lack of access to technical assistance, and
the need for improved access to land and capital. USDA's Civil
Rights Action Team reported in 1997 that Latino farmers were
systematically excluded from USDA programs, and in the year
2000, Guadalupe Garcia and a group of Latino farmers filed a
lawsuit similar to the Pigford, and that was ultimately settled
by the USDA. This lawsuit alleged that discriminatory lending
practices by USDA deprived Latino farmers of opportunities
afforded to their White counterparts.
For example, one of the Latino farmers in this case was
denied a loan to buy land by her local FSA office because they
claimed that the land didn't have sufficient water to farm it,
even though the land in the same area was also being farmed by
two White farmers who were financed with FSA operating loans. I
would ask for unanimous consent to include in the record the
amended complaint in the Garcia lawsuit, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. [inaudible].
Mr. Carbajal. Without objection?
The Chairman. Without objection. Thank you.
[The case referred to is located on p. 350.]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Continuing the current discussion of Black farmers, let me
ask you this, Secretary Vilsack. In my district, the Natural
Resources Conservation District, NRCS, technical assistance,
and the expertise of cooperative extension service have proven
to be critical to ensuring that the latest science-based
practices and the management techniques reach farmers,
especially regarding carbon sequestration. In what ways can
technical assistance be improved to better benefit Black
farmers?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are a couple of
things, Congressman.
First of all, I think we need more folks, more boots on the
ground. That is obviously an appropriations issue. I think
based on our targets and based on what we think is adequate for
servicing the needs of people, we are about ten to 15 percent
below where we need to be with NRCS boots on the ground. So,
first and foremost, boots on the ground.
Second, partnerships. We have mentioned this before. The
ability to align ourselves with the folks who are trusted in
the community to expand our reach, if you will. That starts
with land-grant universities, Hispanic-serving institutions,
and other community building organizations.
I think it is also--we just recently requested input from
folks on the issues of climate through the Federal Register. I
would encourage you to encourage your stakeholders in your
congressional district to respond to the set of questions we
have put forward so we get better ideas and better input on how
to structure efforts in terms of carbon in the future at USDA.
That may also be a way of increasing our understanding of what
is necessary and needed on the ground.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Secretary.
I welcome the other witnesses to also weigh in, if you
could.
Mr. Haynie. Congressman, I think one thing we need to
recognize is that we need more diversity within the agency,
more people that can relate to the constituents that they
serve, more African American and Latino representatives from
NRCS that can go engage with these communities and have
conversations and relate with those audiences. I think that is
a big factor and would help play a big role in continuing the
communication and the services that are available to the farms.
Mrs. Cotton. And this is Arnetta Cotton. I would like----
Mr. Carbajal. Yes, go ahead.
Mrs. Cotton. This is Arnetta Cotton. I would like to add
that you talked about the language barrier. It is not just a
Latino barrier. It is the whole--all the acronyms used by the
government, all of the different forms that are not down to the
language or the capacity of a regular farmer. And then it is
the fact that it is the same people in the office who was there
through Garcia, through Pigford, through all of the others.
They have not been let go, so they feel it is okay as if they
have the blessing of the agency. And it is a poor
representation, because the USDA is the peoples' agency.
Mr. Blanding. Also, Congressman, I would also like to add
to that if you don't mind.
I think as a nation, we have to realize that all of our
challenges have solutions, and it is incumbent upon all of us,
the government, our corporations, our organizations, farmers,
and all of our citizens to be a part of those solutions. And
until we do that, we are going to constantly run around in
circles. Farmers need to be educated, but also the USDA----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank
you so very much.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. Yes, we can. Go ahead, Congressman.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. It is important that we know the state of
our food supply in this nation, and of course, we are focused
on our Black farmers in the U.S.
When I grew up, I grew up on a farm. Ninety-seven percent
of the population of this country was involved in some way when
I grew up in agribusiness, and it has changed quite a bit since
I grew up. I think it is less than two percent of the people in
this country, Mr. Secretary, that are now involved in
agriculture. And of course, what happened was my dad was a
dairy farmer with timber and other things. Of course, along
comes production ag, and in fact, the milk company was going to
finance the expansion of my dad's dairy, but when my dad looked
at the numbers and the fact that he had to put his land on the
line, he turned it down. He went into competition with them and
it put us out of business. And so, again, we are somewhat of a
casualty to what has happened in agriculture since the 1960s,
and I am sure it has affected folks in this hearing today. That
is, it is unfortunate, because my dad loved it, but he just
couldn't continue on.
And obviously, from a stand point of bringing this nation
together--and I understand the feelings on both sides, but, as
people of faith, it is not an option that we come together. In
fact, Mr. Chairman, this one is for you, because I know every
time I get on an airplane you are reading the Bible. 1 Samuel
16:7 says: ``The Lord sees not as man sees. Man looks on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.'' And we
know that God is an impartial God, so--but we are falling
world--and we have to deal with it with our differences.
In that respect, Secretary Vilsack, I am just going to tell
you what I have heard floating around, and I just want to find
out what you have seen there. But the American Rescue Plan Act
of 2021 includes $4 billion for USDA for loans to disadvantaged
farmers, but in that definition of disadvantaged farmers--and
again, what we are hearing is like if you want to change--in
this country, if you decide you want to change your gender, you
can change your gender. Is there a possibility that farmers
could say hey, I want to change my race and benefit from this
program?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I think what you are
getting to is a very fundamental question, and that is whether
we trust farmers or don't trust them. When we had COVID relief,
we trusted farmers when they told us that they were producing
corn or soybeans. We didn't ask them to prove that, we trusted
them, and we sent out billions and billions of dollars. If you
want to create some kind of mechanism that suggests that we are
supposed to distrust farmers, well, we could do that, but I
don't think that is what you want, and certainly not what I
want. We didn't ask for that in CFAP, and I don't think we can
ask for it in this particular situation.
The reality is, we are going to--we are dealing with people
that the Department knows.
Mr. Allen. Sir, not to interrupt you. I am not talking
about trust. I am talking about what is the legality of that?
Did you all look at the legality of that in this law when you
made the law?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is constitutional.
Mr. Allen. I am not talking about a trust issue here. If it
is legal to do this and someone can legally do it, is that
possible?
Secretary Vilsack. First of all, I think the statute is--I
think the law is constitutional for the reasons that were
articulated earlier. It is tailored. It is focused on a
particular set of issues and trying to resolve those issues.
And it certainly is dealing with the cumulative impact of
discrimination. So--but I do think it is a trust issue at the
end of the day, and I think we are going to trust folks. These
are people that have dealt with somebody at the FSA office.
They have had to make a loan. It is not like these are people
that we don't know. We know these people, and the reality is,
they are going to sign the document that says they are
attesting to the truth of whatever it is they are representing.
And there are serious, serious civil and criminal penalties if
you don't tell the truth.
I, for one, I am going to trust the farmers to be truthful,
and if they are not, then they are going to be held
accountable.
Mr. Allen. Okay. Well, again, we make these laws. We
appropriate monies, but from a legality standpoint--and that
question was asked to me, and I don't think they were joking. I
mean, at first I thought it was a joke.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Allen. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. With all due respect, Mr. Allen.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna,
for 5 minutes. You may need to unmute, Mr. Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes, we got it. Go ahead.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. Well, let me just first say how
pleased I am to see Secretary Vilsack in his role. He has
demonstrated such a commitment in his record of public serve to
inclusivity, to expanding opportunity, to caring about rural
America, both Black and White rural America, and I have great
confidence in his leadership. I am glad that President Biden
selected him, and that he was willing to come back to
Washington.
I also want to thank Mr. Boyd for his leadership for
decades in bringing issues of equity to the forefront, and
really, it is a testament, sir, to your leadership and to the
Chairman's vision that we are having a hearing that is long
overdue about basic equity for Black farmers.
Mr. Secretary, you spoke eloquently about USDA's long
history of discrimination and some of the practices. How do you
think we can hold some of the local county committees
accountable for the bad actors? There are still some bad actors
in some of these local county committees, and how do you think
we can get accountability there?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think first and foremost is
making sure that those county committees have adequate
representation that reflects the population that they serve.
Oftentimes, when I was Secretary last, we had 385 counties, I
believe, that didn't have a minority representative. I
appointed minority representatives on those committees. First
of all, there is that, and to the extent that people do provide
discrimination, I think the point has been well taken. I have
taken notes on this. The reality is if we say that
discrimination is not to be tolerated and, in fact,
discrimination occurs, then we do need to take disciplinary
action and it needs to be effective, and it needs to be
forceful, and it needs to be relatively quick so that people do
get the message that this is serious and this is a new day. And
I expect and anticipate that our team will act accordingly.
I think it is also--the Equity Commission is going to be
looking at all aspects of our operation, and I suspect that
they will be looking at the structure and the basis and the
mechanisms by which decisions have been made and appeals take
place, and how that operates. And they may make a set of
suggestions and recommendations. Clearly, our internal review
of this from our working group, consistent with President
Biden's Executive Order, may also result in recommendations.
That process is just getting started, and I want to make sure
that that process is able to work its way through the process
so that we get the very best recommendations.
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Secretary, you have spoken to a number of
us on this Committee about the importance of technology, about
the importance of broadband, biomanufacturing, precision
agriculture, and I wonder how you think we can address some of
the digital divide in access to technology where the African
American community and Black farmers, Black rural South has
been excluded from a lot of that technology, and what can we do
to help alleviate that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think first and foremost, making
a true fully funded commitment to expanding access to rural
broadband, so that, in fact, the technology exists. In many
communities, it does not exist.
Second, I think it is working--again, as we talked about
community building organizations funding and providing them the
resources, extension and land-grant universities, historically
Black colleges, et cetera, being able to give them the
resources that will allow them to do the training so that
people understand, whether it is a small business person or a
farmer, how technology can be utilized appropriately.
I think it is frankly also basically getting younger people
into the United States Department of Agriculture from these
areas in the form of internships so that they, in turn, can go
back home with an understanding of how USDA works, and what
they need in their rural communities, and be able to see if we
can create career opportunities for them at USDA in their local
communities to be able to solve some of the problems that they
know firsthand. It is a combination of that, and I am sure
much, much more.
Mr. Khanna. I appreciate that. I have been surprised in
just my work how much of our economic development is funded
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I look forward to
your leadership on that.
One question for Mr. Boyd and Mr. Blanding, and thank you
again for both of your work. You have correctly testified that
Black farmers are still impacted by discrimination and
government payouts are linked to production. Black farmers have
had less land, are smaller because of the historical legacy of
racism. How do we then level the playing field, given that
Black farmers are at this disadvantage because of having less
land?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, I will take a crack at that first.
First of all, we need to redo the base calculation, the way
that they are calculated, and also, we need caps. We need caps
so all the money just won't go to the big farmers. We have to
figure out a way to do that. During those Trump payouts, there
was no sense in having one county, like Mecklenburg County,
receive $40 an acre, and then in Georgia County receive $140 an
acre. We have to figure out----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman unfortunately has
expired. Perhaps, again, Mr. Boyd----
Mr. Boyd. I am trying.
The Chairman.--may find a way to answer that when a
question is put to you.
What a terrific hearing.
I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panel for being here, and I also want to thank Secretary
Vilsack for joining today. I look forward to having a phone
call with you next week, but I just want to remind you--you
won't remember me, but I met you with Zack Space. You were in
my hometown of Zanesville, Ohio, Muskingum County, when Zack
represented us in Congress and we were kind of doing a nice
little tour, and you did a really nice job. You were down at
the Zanesville Welcome Center. Pretty close to Zack's downtown
office here. I look forward to working with you being a Member
of Congress now.
But Rep. Plaskett kind of touched on this a little bit,
Secretary, but you know, 1 month after Congress appropriated
additional money for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program,
or as she referred to it as CFAP, President Biden froze the
payments. Can you discuss why the Administration suspended CFAP
payments and what the Agency discovered in the nearly 2 month
halt?
Secretary Vilsack. It is standard practice in changes of
Administration for the incoming Administration to take a look
at what may have taken place just before the new Administration
took over. And so, we wanted the opportunity to basically take
a look. We also wanted an opportunity to analyze who wasn't
being served, who wasn't being helped, who wasn't being helped
as much as they needed to be, and that is why yesterday we made
the four-part announcement payments now going under CFAP 2 and
CFAP 1 to cattle producers and some of the commodity producers,
but also resources now for local and regional food system
opportunities, as well as a series of steps we are going to
take with roughly $6 billion to help those we have now
identified were not served, not helped by previous COVID
packages. We will, over the course of the next several months,
be involved in rulemaking to get those resources out the door
as quickly as possible.
It was designed primarily to give us a chance to analyze
who had been helped and who hadn't been helped, and to create
and construct an effort to make sure that we had equitable
assistance throughout the COVID. I will just say, as part of
this hearing, it allowed us to identify the fact that in CFAP
2, the outreach to socially disadvantaged producers wasn't what
it needed to be. That is why we are going to expand the sign-up
for 60 days to give people a chance to apply for those
benefits.
Mr. Balderson. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I
look forward to speaking with you again next week.
My next question is for the panel, and you all can answer
this. I appreciate all your testimonies that you have given
today.
If each of you could target one area for the USDA to
improve its practices or programs, what would that be? Let's
start with Mr. Boyd, since he kind of gets shut off every time
he gets to start talking. Mr. Boyd, lead the way.
Mr. Boyd. Well, first of all, I would do away with the 3
year limitation requirement for new or beginning farmers. That
is the first thing I would do, and I would make sure that we
have full participation in farm ownership loans, farm operating
loans, all of those areas where Black farmers today are pretty
much absent. The only way to do that is to have oversight and
transparency, something I have been trying to get in this whole
hearing and I haven't been able to get it in. We need
transparency so when we have hearings like this, we will be
able to lay out the numbers by state, county, ZIP Code, by
race, and when you have people that bring these issues up, you
will be able to go right to those numbers and see what they
are. That is the way that you improve.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, sir. Anybody going to go next?
Mr. Haynie or anybody would like to go next, go ahead.
Mr. Haynie. I think the one thing that needs to be
addressed is the subsidy programs. John mentioned it earlier,
but right now, we are seeing 20 for a Black farmer compared to
$1 for White farmers on these subsidy programs. That is
something that really needs to be addressed. You have Black
farmers right beside White farmers and they are only getting
25 on a dollar for what their neighbors are receiving in ARC
and PLC programs. These programs were established back in the
1980s during the crux of discrimination at USDA, and they
really need to be addressed. So, that is one issue.
The Secretary mentioned about the COVID program. One of the
benefits of CFAP 1 were the larger farmers had grain storage
and capacities that a lot of small farmers didn't have. If you
didn't have grain stored in your bins, you weren't able to
benefit. A lot of Black farmers had to sell their grains in the
fall of the year and weren't privileged to storage benefit. The
commodity programs and Congresswoman Bustos from Illinois
mentioned it, that is a large pot of money to go out, and the
disparities really start to show themselves when you look at
subsidy programs and differences in dollars paid out to Black
farmers and White farmers.
Thank you.
Mrs. Sherrod. If I may, please allow me the opportunity to
say that farmers with smaller acreage can't compete with the
commodity crops. We actually have had them co-opted, in
cooperatives, and we are organizing them to grow and sell into
other markets, vegetables and so forth. They need the
infrastructure. They can't afford to put in a facility to wash,
dry, cool, and get products to market. It is very important for
those small growers, those small landowners to have access to
money like this to give them a chance to survive.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you so much, and I appreciate you all
panelists. This is such an energetic hearing. It is great. It
is certainly historic, and I appreciate you all.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms.
Schrier, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
guests.
The first issue I want to focus on is land and water access
for Black farmers. Our witnesses today have left no doubt that
farmers of color have faced and still face systemic barriers to
land ownership and water access. And today, Black farmers are
more likely to rent rather than own farmland. They have smaller
farms, own less land, generate less wealth from farming
compared with White farmers, and these factors leave Black
farmers at a huge disadvantage, because farmland real estate
represents nearly 80 percent of total U.S. farm assets. Farmers
who do not own land or have a clear title to land can't
leverage that land or capital to invest in, sustain, and
improve their farming operations.
Now, this is especially challenging in urban and suburban
areas like King and Pierce County in my district. For example,
in Washington State in general, the average price for an acre
of cropland in 2020 was just over $2,600. But by comparison in
King County, the average price for an acre is more than
$35,000, and in Pierce County, it is around $21,500 per acre. I
have heard from farmers of color in Washington State about the
difficulty in obtaining farmland because of these prices, and
the historic systems of discrimination that prevent them from
ever purchasing farmland.
So, my question, Mr. Blanding, can you speak about the
importance of access to land and actually land ownership for
Black farmers, and can you talk about what systemic barriers to
the purchase and ownership of farmland exists for Black farmers
today?
Mr. Blanding. Yes, thank you. That question is for Blanding
or Boyd? I am sorry, I didn't hear.
Ms. Schrier. Mr. Blanding.
Mr. Blanding. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
So, the problems with Black farmers and Black land
ownership is historic. First, in terms of ownership, or again,
access to land, first of all, there has to be access to
equitable credit in order to get access to that land. And I
think there has been systemic problems in the credit industry
for years. I think this is an opportunity for there to be a
Black farmer financial institution modeled after the Farm
Credit System where Black farmers can get the kind of credit
that they need and serve themselves, just like the Farm Credit
System, which is a great system, by the way. But again, Black
farmers need to have access to that type of credit.
But our problem is around maintaining and holding on to
existing land. Heirs property is a major issue in the Black
farming community and the Black community overall. We estimate
60 percent of all Black landowners have this heirs property
issue, and so, we must figure out ways to make sure that there
are things that can be done to make sure this heirs property
situation is cleared up. There are things that already exist,
like the Heirs Property Relending Program that was approved for
the 2018 Farm Bill, but it has yet to be implemented and
funded. So, things like that can be done immediately. But also,
a lot of education and technical assistance around that area
will go a long way to make sure Black farmers continue to hold
on to their land base, and continue to thrive in this country.
But I would also like to say, Congresswoman, that we as a
country have to look at the value of not only all farmers, but
Black farmers and specifically around dealing with the issues
around land and water, as you suggested, because they are all
part of the equation, and you have to make sure that Black
farmers are part of that as well.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
I need to address one more question. Thank you for your
comments.
I just want to also address Black, Indigenous, people of
color farmer participation in conservation programs
specifically. Among White farmers in Washington State, about
nine percent receive Conservation Reserve, wetlands reserve,
farmable wetlands, or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
payments. For Black farmers in Washington, it is less than one
percent.
So, Secretary Vilsack, under your leadership, how will the
USDA work to combat historic and current racial injustices in
climate and agriculture policy, and how can the USDA continue
to support existing conservation programs and make them more
equitable and accessible?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, there are several things. First of
all, we are going to ask the current acting Chief of the NRCS,
Terry Cosby, who is an African American, to help lead that
effort to make sure that resources are more equitably available
to socially disadvantaged producers.
Second, again, the internal review and the external review,
whether it is the Equity Commission or the internal review from
President Biden's Executive Order, will obviously identify
recommendations.
Third, it is about accountability to John Boyd's question
or his comment about transparency. It is about asking for
information on an ongoing basis to make sure that you see
whether there is, in fact, investment being made, and if there
is not, why there is not and who is responsible for making sure
that there is.
So, it is a combination of a lot of those things. I think
it is also a combination of working again with better outreach.
It may not be that folks don't qualify or it may not be that
they are prevented from qualifying; it is that they may not
even know about the program. They may not know what they have
to do. And I think this money in the American Rescue Plan gives
us an enormous opportunity to improve outreach and to take a
look at additional opportunities to help farmers access more
revenue. I think that is what the market process----
The Chairman. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
The Chairman. I recognize next the gentleman from Kansas,
Mr. Mann, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for Mrs. Cotton. Thank you for your
incredible service to your community. In your written testimony
and in our conversations, I know you have mentioned that you
have helped deliver food to more than one million people in
five states during COVID-19 through the USDA's Farmers to
Families Food Box Program. What do you foresee is the future
for this program, and how can the USDA assist with connecting
more rural and underserved communities, or communities in the
last mile to get them the food that they need?
Mrs. Cotton. Thank you, Representative Mann. I appreciate
that question.
It is an excellent program. It is viable and it is much
needed. We have people coming, as you know, from five different
states to Oklahoma, because in their areas, it is not as
functional, all right? And so, what happens, some of the food
banks for a sense of efficiency, some of the dollars were sent
to food banks in these last two programs--in the last two
phases. By being sent to food banks, then organizations then
have to qualify through the food bank in order to pick up from
them or to be considered a hub. What would make it more viable
is if the people who are actually getting the work done in
integrity--there have been people who have taken advantage of
the system--but who are operating in integrity and getting the
food out to the people where they belong, I believe that it
will continue to be a good program.
As far as the last mile is concerned, it goes back to
transparency and accountability. If those vendors were awarded
monies that included last mile delivery--so, if for me, I am
sending out to different places, then from me, then that person
who is doing that work, networking with other people, should
get that last mile.
And so, how do we continue to do so? By percentages. It is
documentable. They know how many trucks that they are
delivering. They know where the trucks are going. They know how
much is being disseminated and what is not being returned to
them. That is an easy, easy fix. By allowing some of the cold
storage, which they have had refrigerated trucks, if they would
allow some of the cold storage to include thermal blankets, so
in some of the really--because our communities are so rural,
they can't afford to get a semi-truck. If they would allow
thermal blankets to suffice in cold storage, we would be able
to get it out quicker. And if they would underwrite the cost of
providing those blankets to individuals who are picking up and
then taking to other people. Our community is less than 2,000,
and so, there are lot of seniors who are homebound, and we need
that service. We actually do. But it is wonderful.
And something to help our volunteers. I would say that,
too. Our community has come together, yes.
Mr. Mann. You don't feed one million people without a lot
of volunteers, so thank you for that.
My second question, this one is for Mr. Haynie.
Mr. Haynie, in your testimony, you mentioned that you have
formed partnerships with land-grant universities. We all know
that land-grant universities play an important role in
educating our next generation of farmers. Can you talk more
about your partnership with these land-grant universities, and
how they have helped?
Mr. Haynie. Well, I mentioned partnerships with
corporations and in our local and state agencies. But we have
relationships with the land-grant universities where we have--
National Black Growers Council has a field day strategy, and we
want to work with those land-grant universities to bring the
agriculture community, who typically is not serviced--they can
come out and see the latest and greatest that agriculture has
to offer. What corporations have to offer as far as seed and
chemistry and technology, these communities are often not
served by the salesmen who would typically go to the White
farmer who is the larger spender and the bigger accounts. They
take all this information there, and oftentimes, they drive
right past the driveways where Black farmers exist. We wanted
to make sure that we were a conduit and a pipeline for
information for the Black farm community to be aware of
everything that is available in production agriculture.
Mr. Mann. Great, great. Thank you, both of you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs.
Kirkpatrick, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, good afternoon from Arizona. Thank
you, Chairman Scott, for bringing us together with this panel
on such an important topic.
I grew up in the White Mountain Apache Reservation in rural
Arizona, and was raised in a ranching family, so I know just
how important these USDA programs are for farming and ranching
families.
In my State of Arizona, there are more Native American
farmers than any other state, and I want to mention the unique
challenges they face in getting access to USDA programs. Just
as heirs property created a barrier for Black farmers getting
financial aid from farm loans, Native American farmers have
also struggled to participate in USDA programs due to the
nature of land ownership of Indian trust lands.
For Native American farmers, historical program rules
requiring land ownership for eligibility have prevented them
from accessing the assistance they need to develop their land.
A common thread in all of the testimony today is that these
obstacles create systemic inequity. Not surprisingly, due to
these systemic inequities, White farmers are 70 percent more
profitable than Native American farms, despite Native American
farms being over twice the size.
First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to include in the record a 2019 report by the GAO describing
the needs and barriers to agricultural lending on Tribal land.
The Chairman. It is done without objection.
[The report referred to is located on p. 375.]
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you so much.
So, my first question is for Mrs. Sherrod. I am moved by
your testimony, and I am so sorry to hear about this grim
anniversary of your father's death. It saddens me to hear that
you never received justice in your father's case. I am also
very troubled by the problems you detailed that still plague
the USDA today, and continue the cycle of inequity.
So, here is my question. Can you describe some things that
the USDA can do to improve its outreach to Black farmers, and
what are the main barriers to Black farmers accessing USDA
programs?
Mrs. Sherrod. Let me say that working with community-based
organizations, we are on the ground. We have been working with
them to help change their situations, in spite of all the
issues they face with USDA. I think it is very important--that
is why we fought for Section 2501 way back in the 1990s to try
to get funds specifically targeted to minority farmers and
through community-based organizations and 1890 land-grants.
That program is now serving everybody. They have thrown the
kitchen sink towards that program so that Black farmers are not
getting the benefit of something we fought so hard to get
passed. There are so many different barriers now because people
have been kept out of the agency. You have to make them feel
they can come back there for help, and that can happen if you
work with people on the ground who are working with them. USDA
is there but they need us, and we can help turn that around,
but we can't get the funding to do it.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. They do, indeed, need you, so thank you
for recognizing that.
My second question is for Mr. Rowe. I am inspired by your
testimony today and by your decision to become a first-
generation farmer. Further, I can only imagine the difficulty
in not only starting a farm completely from scratch, but going
through the process to ensure you are producing organic crops.
From my conversations with farmers back home, I know that
going through the organic certification process is something
that scares a lot of farmers off, or they don't know where to
start, even if they are already operating under USDA organic
practices. Can you describe for us some of the reasons you
chose to produce organically, and if you see an opportunity to
help more Black farms through the USDA organic certification?
The Chairman. I am going to have to ask if you might be
kind enough to reply in writing. We are way past the time. I
deeply appreciate your consideration. We want to get every
Member in this important hearing.
So, now I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson.
First, I just want to thank each of the witnesses for their
testimony today and sharing the experiences you, your family,
and your friends have faced. I appreciate you saying these
things, and I also definitely appreciate the Secretary of
Agriculture, Mr. Vilsack, for being here today. He is from my
home state, and I appreciate that.
Mrs. Cotton, in your testimony you speak to the importance
of local community organizations in relaying USDA resources.
Can you expand on how USDA could better engage with community
organizations and non-governmental organizations to conduct
outreach and to implement USDA training programs?
Mrs. Cotton. Absolutely. We have land-grant--thank you so
very much for that question and for the opportunity.
We have land-grant universities here in Oklahoma through
which, as Mrs. Sherrod just talked about, the Section 2501
programs. We have that available to us that we can partner with
the USDA. They are educational institutions and they are
established as minorities, and so it would be wonderful if
through those university's programs with existing community
outreach programs, they would partner together in order to be
the hands and feet--or rather, the boots on the ground for the
people in the communities. They are big enough to partner with
the USDA offices in all of their branches, FSA, NRCS, RD, in
order to talk to the people in their language and kind of break
it down, break it down from what the government expects, break
it down to its simplest denomination so everyone can understand
it, and then they be there to help walk the people through
giving technical advice without coming back and saying yes, you
did it right. Let's follow up on that. Let's follow through to
see that it was successful are two different things. By
partnering with the USDA and the land-grant universities, we
can do that. They can absolutely create educational programs
that can go out to the field and then be applied to those in
the communities.
Mr. Feenstra. I appreciate that, Mrs. Cotton, and so, I am
just curious. In Iowa, we have the Iowa Extension Service that
does some of this that sort of works together. I didn't know if
the extension service is available in your area or not. This is
pretty big for our area, for our farmers, and I find it--I am a
local farmer here. My family is, and we use that extension
service a lot.
Mrs. Cotton. The extension services are available to us.
OSU extension is available to us in the area, but when it comes
to combining the two programs, they focus more on the
agricultural side--actually the agricultural side, but the
implementation of USDA programs needs the partnerships
primarily with land-grant universities that are historically
underserved.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. No, I appreciate your comments and I
agree 100 percent with you. I would love to work with the
Chairman and things like that on trying to figure out how that
partnership can occur. I have a land-grant university in my
state also, Iowa State University, and they are very big into
agriculture and trying to figure out how we can help one
another, and continue to expand, especially in diversity.
So, thank you so much for your comments, and Mr. Chairman,
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Now, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Sanford
Bishop, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank
you so very much for holding this historic hearing on the state
of Black farmers in the United States. Let me thank you for
bringing together such a tremendous panel to help us understand
how we can bring equity to Black farmers. Let me thank
especially Secretary Vilsack for his commitment to bringing
equity. I want to also thank him for his efforts to reconcile
with Mrs. Sherrod, who was once in the Administration where he
was Secretary of rural development for Georgia. I want to
welcome the other witnesses from Georgia with whom I have
worked, and am so delighted that they were able to testify, and
for Mrs. Cotton and Reverend Cotton, I want to welcome you. I
am delighted to meet you.
Let me go back to what was just raised with regard to
outreach and advocacy. One of the tremendous needs for Black
farmers to be able to fully access the resources of USDA is to
know what resources are available and how to get to them.
Advocacy and outreach is extremely important, and of course,
the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement is performing
that function, and I think under the previous Vilsack-run
Department the advocacy and outreach function was performed
there.
But it seems to me that to bring together the 1890s, the
land-grants, the community-based programs, the Section 2501
programs, you need to have within USDA a focused office of
whose sole responsibility is to make sure that that outreach
happens in each and every subagency of USDA, Farm Service
Agency, Rural Development, Rural Housing Service, Rural
Utilities Service, NRCS, marketing, the export opportunities,
research, and the opportunity to develop young farmers. The
1890s National Scholars Program, for example, the internship
programs, all of these things are vitally important, but
somebody at USDA--and right now, I think it is being done by
the Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement--but I would
like to ask the Secretary if he can assure us--and I
congratulate him on Deputy Secretary Hairston--who we hope will
soon be confirmed, to work with him to make this happen.
Can you comment on that briefly, Mr. Secretary, and then I
would like to--if you could be brief on that, to ask Mrs.
Sherrod and Mrs. Cotton to comment on the impact and experience
that they have had as Black women farmers.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
the question. The answer--the quick answer is yes, and we know
this works because on advice that Shirley Sherrod gave me in my
last time at USDA. We did create the Strike Force Initiative
that she made reference to. It ended up operating in over 20
states and made over 200,000 investments. This system works. We
need more of it.
Mrs. Sherrod. And I want to add that as a female in the
field of agriculture, working with farmers and farming, we made
major contributions, just let me say that. I have gone from
having to sit down with the farmer and help him understand what
it meant to change--for example, if I go back years from the
old allotment program with peanuts to the--well, I won't go
back that far. But farmers are focused on farming. Women focus
on the business as well, and when you put those together, we
can make progress. We also plan and are developing cooperatives
and looking at markets and helping our farmers to transition
from row crops when they don't have enough land. We make those
contributions to this work that no one really recognizes.
Mrs. Cotton. And let me add to that. In addition to all of
that, we do the actual work: haul the hay, fix the fence, work
the cows. But when we go into the offices, I have had to even
prove--I am 411", you all--and I have had to go in and show
video of me staging hay because they said there was no way that
I could do it.
The Chairman. I am sorry, but the time of the gentleman,
Mr. Bishop, has expired. I am sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Now, I recognize the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, Mrs. Fischbach, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity and I thank all of the testifiers for being here
today. It has been very, very interesting.
I just have a couple of questions for the Secretary. I have
heard a couple of the testifiers mention passing on the farm
and several generations worth of farming, and Mr. Secretary,
the Biden Administration has been talking about potentially
making some changes to the calculation of the stepped-up basis.
I am wondering if you could maybe comment on that, on how that
might affect some of these folks that are trying to pass on
that farm, particularly in the socially disadvantaged
communities?
Secretary Vilsack. Congresswoman, I have not had an
opportunity to visit with anyone in the Biden Administration on
the issue of stepped-up basis. I do know that it is an
important aspect of the countryside where people who pass away,
the appreciation of their farmland is essentially not taxed,
not subject to income tax, and it provides an opportunity for
transfer to the next generation. I am happy to look into that
issue and find out more about it, but I am sorry to say I am
not prepared to respond to that question today. I didn't
anticipate that one.
Mrs. Fischbach. And Mr. Secretary, I would appreciate that.
Just--like I said, as we were talking, some of the testifiers
were talking a little bit about those generational farms, and
so I just thought that that might be something that would be of
concern.
But Mr. Secretary, just one other thing. Congressman Bishop
was talking a little bit about some of the outreach. I was just
kind of wondering if maybe you could expand a little bit on
some of that, and what kind of outreach is being done on some
of the existing programs to make sure in particular that
younger generation of farmers, but, with an emphasis on those
groups in the socially disadvantaged communities?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, obviously COVID has made somewhat
of a different situation over the last year, but historically,
I think the panelists have basically put their finger on the
real problem here, which is that it is very, very hard for
farmers to initiate the conversation that leads to providing
the technical assistance and outreach if you don't trust the
people that you are asking for help. And that is the
fundamental issue here, one of the fundamental issues. We have
to restore trust out on the countryside. And frankly, we can't
do that--in my estimation, we can't do that by walking in to--
or walking on the farm and saying, as we say, hi, I am here
from the government. I am here to help you. We have to walk on
the farm with someone who they trust. It can be a community
building organization, a land-grant university, extension,
whatever it might be, and basically say we are here to listen.
We are here to learn how we can help you. And then, there has
to be a commitment to make it a successful relationship and
transaction. It can't be just we listen and then we give you 15
reasons why it won't happen. We have to figure out ways in
which we take care of each one of those reasons and ultimately
get to success so that people recognize that there is a reason
for the Federal Government; there is a reason for the
Department of Agriculture; that we are there to help and it
creates the relationship that ultimately leads to further
opportunities.
I think it starts fundamentally with building trust, and I
think that starts with making sure that we are not alone when
we go providing assistance and help, and that we listen, that
we respect and acknowledge the reason why they are distrustful.
It is absolutely rational what we are dealing with here.
Mrs. Fischbach. And Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that and
because we have existing programs, we just have to make sure
that there are programs within the USDA and I just want to make
sure that we are making sure that people are aware of those,
and I appreciate the issue of the trust and that you will be
reaching out in that way with a trusted individual with you, or
however you determine that is going to be working.
But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity, and I yield back my whole 45 seconds.
The Chairman. Wonderful. Thank you so much.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted
that you called this hearing. I want to thank you all and I
want to welcome the witnesses here.
I know that there have been a lot of questions today, but I
am interested to ask Mr. Boyd that when you talk about all of
the problems that we have had, especially with the relationship
between Black farmers and USDA, what mechanism should we be
doing now? We have a new Secretary in now to help rebuild the
relationships.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much for the question. I tapped on
it a little bit earlier, and everybody has today. Outreach and
technical assistance, and building trust. We have 116,000
members in 46 states, and we are overwhelmed with just
inquiries on all of this stuff. There has to be better
communication, and I am going to say this to Secretary Vilsack,
who I have an enormous amount of respect for. Organizations
like the National Black Farmers Association have to be engaged
at the highest levels at the United States Department of
Agriculture if this thing is going to work. When you are
forming these committees and you are having these inside
panels, we need to be at the table, too, so we can make sure we
are injecting the right information. The government can't fix
itself. The fox can't watch the henhouse here. You got to have
some people at the table on the outside of these groups at the
table to help advise and make sure that we do this thing right,
that we get it right this time.
So, we have a wonderful opportunity here, I believe, to do
some great things here in the next 4 years, and the only way to
do that is work collaboratively together in an expeditious way,
because right now, we are facing extinction. Our farmers are
hurting and they are looking for answers, and they are looking
for next steps. I am looking forward to working with this
Administration to putting all of those things in place,
especially the outreach and technical assistance piece.
Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you very much, and Mr. Secretary, a
year ago or 2 years ago when Mr. Perdue was Secretary, I
brought him down to Tallahassee to Florida A&M University to
speak with the agricultural department at the HBCU and he was
very helpful on a lot of things that he said that they were
going to do. I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, how do
you intend for your agency's support in these Black students,
Black women, Black veterans who are trying to enter into the
agriculture industry for the first time?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there is tremendous
opportunity with resources that have recently been provided to
really expand and to deepen our commitment to internships.
Getting these young people to be connected to the USDA in a
variety of different mission areas, so they have experience,
they develop relationships, they develop an understanding and
appreciation for the opportunities that may exist. And then
basically make sure that, that it is connected potentially, to
a job opportunity. We have a tremendous internship program.
Chairman Scott, is a great supporter of that. Chairman Bishop
is a great supporter of that. I would anticipate and expect
that we will continue to have support for that effort to link
internships with job opportunities, and I think that is one way
of getting people involved and active.
The second way, there is a program called Together We Grow
that is currently working out of Colorado State University, but
it includes historic Black colleges as well, and they are
working collaboratively with agribusiness, with the USDA, and
other entities to try to expand opportunities for minority
students in all of agribusiness. I would say that the USDA
probably should be looking for ways at some point to link up
with that effort or similar efforts to make sure that
agribusiness is also engaged in this outreach effort.
Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you very much. I have about 40
seconds, but I want to ask Mr. Rowe, how do you get more Black
farmers interested in organic farming? Did anyone----
The Chairman. Is Mr. Rowe----
Mrs. Sherrod. One thing is to help farmers like Mr. Rowe
become successful. He hasn't been able to access financing
through the agency. Helping him--he is an example for so many
others, and there are other examples out there. We need to
really help them and showing that there is a possibility.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired,
unfortunately.
Mr. Lawson. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Now, I recognize the gentlewoman from
Illinois, Mrs. Miller, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for
Mrs. Sherrod.
You make the statement in your written testimony that the
USDA has been the driving force behind the steady decline in
the number of Black farms and Black-owned farmland. I was just
curious could you specifically expand on what you mean by that
statement, and then give me what your prioritized solutions
would be?
Mrs. Sherrod. Okay. Well, I can give you lots of
information on justifying the statement that I made, going back
to our own farm, going back to land that an organization we
have to create as an answer to land being taken. We created the
First Community Land Trust and the discrimination we faced by
USDA caused us in 1985 to lose 6,000 acres of land. A White
farmer can want your property--and I have worked on so many
cases like this--and the next thing you know, you are in real
trouble with the agency if you are a borrower. I have seen it
happen so many times. I have worked through so many of those
issues through the years, and again, having people who the
farmers trust and willing to get to know the various programs
that they need to access, and helping them to do that is part
of the answer to this. Because there are so many programs out
there they can take advantage of, but they are afraid to try to
even go to the agency. There is no trust there, and they think
it is a place where they will definitely lose their land.
Mrs. Miller. Okay, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Oh, awesome, Mrs. Miller, thank you very
much.
And now, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bobby
Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
outstanding and historic hearing that is shining a bright light
on one of the longstanding problems that we have in our nation.
Mr. Chairman, I am currently reading a book entitled, The
Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap, by
Mehrsa Baradaran, and one particular passage in the book that
really resonated with me as I prepared for today's critical and
long overdue hearing goes like this, and I quote, ``When the
Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, the Black
community owned a total of 0.5 percent of the total wealth in
the United States. . . . more than 150 years later, that number
has barely budged--Blacks still own only one percent of wealth
in the United States.'' When Martin Luther King stood on the
steps on the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, he said, and I quote,
``America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which
has come back marked `insufficient funds'. Yet, despite a
century of honest toil--the check has continued to involve
insufficient funds.'' And Mr. Chairman, it is clear from
today's hearing that Black farmers exemplify how the Black
community has received and still receives an NSF check.
I want to thank all the witnesses before us.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Secretary Vilsack. Secretary
Vilsack, I am honored that you are committed to prioritizing a
diverse team into addressing the longstanding racial equity
issues the vast majority of Black farmers and Black-owned
farmland. Secretary Vilsack, I have a number of questions here.
Will you expand upon the concrete steps that you are taking to
foster trust and ensuring the timely access to capital for
Black farmers? Include Title 9 in that. Do you need any
additional authorities from Congress to enact policies to
directly help struggling Black farmers and to reverse the
impact of decades of discriminatory practices in the USDA? It
is my understanding that there is currently insufficient
transparency regarding assistance to farmers based on race. To
that end, I would like to know, can you tell me the number of
Black farmers who bought crop insurance policies in 2019
compared to White farmers? Can you tell me how much Black
farmers received in premiums or income support compared to
White farmers? Can you tell me how many part-ownership Black
farmers received farm ownership or operating loans in 2019
compared to White farmers? Given the decades of discrimination
that have led to the vast majority of Black farmers having to
sell their farms, can you support [inaudible] on subsidies and
loans available to Black farmers?
Mr. Secretary, can you answer any or most of those
questions?
Secretary Vilsack. Congressman, I am happy to provide you
the data on the last question you asked concerning transparency
to the extent that we have it. I know, for example, from 2017
to 2020, there were 2,131 direct loans to socially
disadvantaged farmers, approximately $112 million went out.
That I know. I am happy to provide you with information on
that.
I don't know that I necessarily need more authority, but I
am interested in knowing what the Equity Commission and our
internal review pursuant to President Biden's Executive Order
will identify, and we may come back to you asking for
additional authority.
In terms of specific steps, over the course of the next 6
months, I think we are going to take--we are going to learn a
lot. We are going to take an effort to try to better connect
with the historic Black colleges and other community building
organizations with the resources you have provided in the
American Rescue Plan, and I would anticipate and hope that we
have--to begin the process, and I emphasize begin, begin the
process of improved outreach as a result of the Section 1006
money that is provided in the Rescue Plan.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record the quote from the book, The Color of
Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap, by Mehrsa
Baradaran who I referenced earlier in my testimony. Unanimous
consent.
The Chairman. It is so done without objection.
[The excerpt of the book is located on p. 348.]
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have entered the end
of our Members' questions. And so, what we want to do now is
have concluding remarks from my Ranking Member, Congressman
Thompson, and myself.
But let me just say this, please. This has been
extraordinary. When I opened this hearing, I opened it with the
precious words of the Lord, as was expounded by his great
apostle, Paul. When Paul wrote that all things come together
for good to them who love God, and to them who are called
according to God's purpose. Ladies and gentlemen, we have done
that today. And I just want to say from the bottom of my heart,
thank you, and God bless you. I want you to know that this
testimony that we have had today will become the basis, the
foundation of the legislation that we are working on in our
Committee right now to address racial discrimination against
our Black farmers, and it will be on two major foundations, all
of what you said. We will make it wrong, unlawful for all and
each of the discriminatory practices that you all have outlined
to us will be in this legislation, written into law that never
again will we have any of the discriminatory practices that you
all have exposed for us today within our United States
Department of Agriculture. But this legislation isn't going to
stop there, because the fundamental problem that we have is to
make sure that we increase the market share of the products
that our Black farmers are bringing and producing to the
agricultural market. We are going to have some incentives in
there so that we can increase that. We will also have things in
this bill that will increase the number of Black farmers we
have, the acreage we own, but we had to hear from you first,
and you have outlined God's purpose that He has brought you and
me and this great Committee together.
And so, right now, I want to introduce and have my partner,
because let me tell you this. You didn't just hear from
Democrats today who said they are concerned to eliminate the
racial discrimination. You heard from Republicans. And let me
tell you something else. That great Republican, Abraham
Lincoln, who freed the slaves, he not only did that. When he
created the Agriculture Department, it was Abraham Lincoln who
said this is the people's department. Abraham Lincoln said
that. I think that, and his freeing of my people and our Black
people makes him the final statement that I want to make before
I introduce my Republican friend. Because let me tell you all
this. We talk about that 1890s land-grant African American
colleges and universities. It was a Republican Senator named
Senator Morrill. It was the Morrill Act that established the
land-grant colleges in 1860, and then after Plessy v. Ferguson,
that is when it was separate but equal established. And
everywhere there was a White land-grant by law, it was the same
Republican Senator Morrill and it is called the Morrill Act. It
was he who established the 19 land-grant colleges and
universities. That is why I am telling you, man, we did God's
work in here today, Republicans and Democrats together, and
Republicans and Democrats are going to put this bill together
that is based upon what you all have testified and asked us to
put into this bill.
And now, with that, I want to present my distinguished
partner and the Ranking Member, Congressman Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you, David. I
appreciate the partnership as we work for this amazing industry
of agriculture that provides the food and the fiber, the
building materials, construction materials, all come off of
agriculture land. I would like to say without a robust rural
economy, every American is going to wake up in the cold, dark
and hungry. And so, thank you for this hearing today. I thought
it was a great hearing.
First of all, thank you to all of our witnesses. Your
written testimony, your oral testimony was compelling. It was
insightful. You made it passionate and personal, and so, I
think we succeeded. And so, thank you to each and every one of
you. Thank you to all the Members that weighed in and
participated and asked thoughtful, insightful questions. I
would be remiss, if both the Chairman and I wouldn't say thank
you to all the staff, both Committee staff of both parties, and
quite frankly, the agriculture staff of these individual
Members who put their heart and soul into working on this
issue.
This is a conversation that was long overdue, and the fact
that we have elevated this, we have had this conversation we
have--if we are going to really achieve that vision that I
think we share of restoring a robust rural economy, that means
we have to lift everyone up and we can leave no one behind. I
think the discrimination that we have seen a record of in the
past, the documentation, whether it was systemic in terms of
policy or whether it was the attitudes that were unacceptable,
just cruel attitudes that certain folks perhaps had that had
authority at USDA. Their time has passed. I am confident we
have a Secretary that will be a great partner with us as we go
forward. I am confident that we will learn from this, and the
practices that we have in place.
I am also very proud of what we have done in the past
couple farm bills in terms of the set asides that we put out
there for Black farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers, and
so, I think we have momentum. We got great momentum, but we
need to build on it, and I think we just have the right farm
team together, let me put it that way, to be successful.
So, once again, thank you to all the witnesses. Mr.
Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, and I wanted to just use my
closing remarks to thank this panel.
Secretary Vilsack, God bless you, my friend. You came and
you stayed for this entire hearing, and you heard what I heard.
And the reason that is so important is that you and I and our
Committee, along with this testimony that we have heard from
Mr. John Boyd, from Mrs. Shirley Sherrod, from Mrs. Arnetta
Cotton and Earrak Cotton, from Cornelius Blanding, from Sedrick
Rowe, and from Philip Haynie, what a blessing that God has
given us with the wisdom, the information that these
individuals have given to you and me and this Committee. Now
our charge is to take this wisdom, take what they are asking us
to do.
This bill that we will be working on to end, end racial
discrimination in the United States Department of Agriculture
and in our wonderful world of agriculture, our entire industry,
we will be able to do. And let me assure you, this is truly
God's work, and I want to thank again my Republican partner,
because he and I have to put this bill together. But we
couldn't do it until we heard from the Black farmers, and that
is what we will base this on.
Mr. Secretary, I want you to know from me personally what
your participation in this hearing means. Not just from me, not
just for our Committee, but the entire nation to see you here
because so many of these charges of racial discrimination were
laid at your feet. This is why it is so important that we
recognize your participation and the fact of your willingness
to be the leader in making sure that your Agriculture
Department of which you lead will eliminate all vestiges of
discrimination. I couldn't do it. None of us can do it. The
only one that can make sure, regardless of what we put in the
law or paper, is because we have the Secretary of Agriculture
that is built on the legacy of the man who put our agriculture
together, and who freed Black people from the vestiges of
slavery when he called the Department of Agriculture the
people's department. Abraham Lincoln did that, and that is
whose shoulders we stand on this day. And I thank you so much
for being a part of this. God bless you, and God bless this
panel. Thank you.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letters by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Letter 1
on behalf of james bunch, president/chief executive officer, bunchology
llc
March 24, 2021
Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.
Subject: Agricultural Outreach Project To Increase the Number of
Black Farmers in the U.S.
Dear Chairman Scott:
Bunchology LLC is a disadvantaged small minority owned business
eligible for contracts and grants from the U.S. Government. The owner
is an American with a disability. Eliminating food deserts and
increasing the number of Black farmers is a must during this critical
time in our country. I would like to make you aware of the following
project that will help the Administration address these concerns and
build back better. The title of this Initiative is: ``How The Hip Hop
Farmers Youth Initiative and the Divine Nine (Black Greek
Organizations) Can Help The Administration Build Back Better By
Tackling Food Deserts In Historically Underserved Communities''. This
project will create approximately 2400 jobs for economically distressed
and poverty stricken communities. It will be a multi-state (25) and
multi-million dollar Initiative.
President Biden often speaks of how he is keenly aware that Black
Americans played a major role in his victories and that he is committed
to addressing their specific concerns. He has often stated that he will
ensure that Black businesses will receive their fair share of
government contracts and agreements during his Administration. Several
months from now when the President and Vice President are going around
the country highlighting their accomplishments specifically for the
Black community, my goal is for this project to be one of their stops.
In light of President Biden's Executive Order ``On Advancing Racial
Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal
Government'', I believe this Initiative would address his commitment to
be Bold and Go Big!
Therefore, my ask of you is that you please share the attached
Proposal through the proper channels with Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack and Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Jewel Bronaugh. I am
seeking a Cooperative Agreement with the Department to fund my Project.
I respectfully request a written response from the Secretary within 15
days from the date of this letter.
I would like to thank you for your assistance with this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Warmest Regards,
James Bunch, President/CEO
Bunchology LLC
Cc:
Theodis Bunch, USDA Retiree, Pine Bluff, AR
Orlando Phelps, USDA Retiree, Hermanville, MS
Clifton E. Peters, USDA Retiree, Lorman, MS
Eddie L. Bunch, USDA Retiree, Carlisle, AR
Willie J. Terry, USDA Retiree, Greenville, MS
attachment
Summary
Project Title: How the Hip Hop Farmers Youth Initiative and the
Divine Nine (Black Greek Organizations) Can Help the Administration
Build Back Better By Tackling Food Deserts in Historically
Underserved Communities
Project Start Date: October 1, 2021
Project End Date: September 30, 2022
Bunchology LLC was developed by James Bunch, President/CEO to
provide the following services to the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Increase the number of New and Beginning farmers among historically
underserved groups/individuals such as Veterans, Community Based
Organizations, and socially disadvantaged youth. Provide technical
assistance and training to these groups/individuals on how to start a
business in vegetable crop production utilizing the Seasonal High
Tunnel System.
The collaborators for this project will be one hundred (100)
historically underserved farmers, land-grant colleges and universities
and one hundred (100) Divine Nine local Black Greek chapters located
throughout the twenty-four (24) states and the District of Columbia.
Selected states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. The critical need for this
project is due to the lack of the availability of healthy foods (fresh
fruits and vegetables) in these communities which are impacted by food
deserts. A team of twelve (12) retired USDA professionals will provide
the leadership/expertise to ensure the development of one hundred (100)
demonstration farms to include the construction of two hundred (200)
seasonal high tunnel systems (30 x 72) to facilitate the production
of fresh fruits and vegetables and training to project participants.
Expected outcomes:
Increased availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in the
targeted states[;]
Economic boost in the targeted area due to job creation
(approximately 2,400)[;]
Increase in the number of new and beginning farmers among
historically underserved groups (approximately 100); and
Increase in students pursuing degrees in the food and
agricultural sciences, thereby increasing the pool of
candidates eligible for USDA career opportunities.
Contact:
James Bunch, President/CEO
Bunchology LLC
Phone: 901-315-6008
Email: [email protected]
Letter 2
on behalf of webster e. davis, senior policy advisor, family farm
action
April 4, 2021
Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Ranking Minority Member,
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.
RE: A Hearing to Review the State of Black Farmers in the U.S.
Family Farm Action would like to thank Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Thompson for convening this hearing to review the state of Black
farmers in the U.S. Discrimination against Black farmers is sewn into
the fabric of U.S. agriculture. In 1910, Black farmers owned 16 to 19
million acres of land and made up 14% of America's farmers, while in
2017 Black farmers operated on just 4.7 million acres of farmland and
accounted for 1.4% of farmers in the U.S. Much of this land loss can be
attributed to discriminatory lending, particularly by the hands of
USDA. We are grateful that Congressional hearings on the issues faced
by Black farmers were held, as increasing awareness and dialogue is key
to the proper courses of action.
By calling for this historic hearing, it is clear the Members of
this Committee recognize the need to address systemic racism in
agriculture, and to work together to begin rectifying it. We are also
encouraged by Secretary Vilsack testifying and confronting the
discriminative actions toward Black farmers by the hands of USDA. The
Secretary's commitment to rooting out this behavior in the agency, and
affirming that racism and discrimination have no place in the
agricultural sector on the whole. While encouraged by these
commitments, we know that racism is pervasive and is experienced by
Black farmers across this nation. We hope the testimony we hear today
will bring about action and justice for Black farmers.
The provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 set a well-
rounded approach and build the solid foundation needed to address the
ongoing legacy of systemic racism Black farmers experience in the
United States. We applaud the passage of the American Rescue Plan which
included full debt forgiveness, the creation of an Independent Civil
Rights Oversight Board, and the creation of an Equity Commission.
However, the work of this Committee and the Biden-Harris Administration
has just started.
Historic discrimination and exploitation of Black farmers,
ranchers, and workers must be actively addressed and remedied. Policy
must intentionally create equitable access for BIPOC folks to land and
credit, market opportunities, safe working conditions, a seat at the
policy development table, access to culturally relevant training and
technical assistance, and just treatment by all Federal agencies.
Family Farm Action Alliance issued key policy recommendations to the
117th Congress,\1\ and has continued to request anti-racist development
and implementation of prog[r]ams authorized by Executive Order and the
117th Congress. Those recommendations that specifically call for anti-
racist food and farm policy and that we recommend for your
consideration are included below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Family Farm Action Alliance. Toolkit for Congress. January
2021. Available at https://farmactionalliance.org/toolkitforcongress/.
Ensure full implementation and outreach of USDA COVID Stimulus
Grants and Food Purchasing Programs authorized in the Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
Use every resource necessary to reach all socially
disadvantaged farmers and provide technical assistance to
forgive all currently held loans
Ensure all farmers receive USDA Consumer Data From AD-2047
and technical assistance to complete it, which allows them to
identify as a socially disadvantaged producer, and thus be
eligible for designated programs, funding, and support.
Ensure all farmers receive USDA Program Discrimination
Complaint Form AD-3027 and technical assistance to complete it,
which allows them to file a complaint to USDA in cases of
discrimination.
In the development of the USDA AMS COVID-19 stimulus grant,
we recommend at least 10% of funds be set aside for applicants
in persistent poverty counties as outlined in the Clyburn 10/
20/30 formula,\2\ and a 10% set aside for BIPOC and women-owned
and operated food chain businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congressman James. E. Clyburn. ``10/20/30 Formula to Fight
Persistent Poverty.'' Available at https://clyburn.house.gov/10-20-30-
amendment.
USDA should hold state and regional meetings inviting state
leaders to determine the best roll out plan for particular
regions and states to help insure an equitable distribution of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
funds.
Pass the Justice for Black Farmers Act: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 117th Congress: Justice for Black Farmers Act (S. 300).
Forms a Black Farmer Land-Grant through a new line agency at
USDA where land of up to 160 acres would be available to Black
individuals at no cost.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Homestead Acts passed between 1862-1916 granted land in the
amount of 160-640 acres, and prioritized people of European descent
while excluding Black people. ``Forty acres and mule,'' a land-grant
program that passed during the Civil War, granted land to formerly
enslaved men. The program was poorly administered, and was revoked upon
transition from the Abraham Lincoln to Andrew Jackson Administrations.
As other ethnic and racial groups have historically been prioritized in
land-grant programs and continue to benefit from their legacy, it is
appropriate to prioritize Black individuals in a future land-grant
program.
Increases credit access and land retention for marginalized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
farmers.
Funds historically Black colleges and universities at a
level of $500 million per year for 10 years to expand
agricultural education.
Provides additional funding and technical expertise to
assist with resolving heirship issues for existing Black
farmers.
Strengthens existing antitrust enforcement through the
Packers and Stockyards Act, with the knowledge that food chain
workers of color are additionally vulnerable to economic and
labor exploitation.
Fund 1890 Land-Grant Universities:
Appropriate 1890 college payments and 1890 cooperative
extension funds to the same Federal level as 1862 land-grant
college payments and cooperative extension funds, and require
states to meet the Federal match. Often, 1890 university
appropriations fall short of 100% funding, while 1862
university appropriations often exceed ``full'' funding.
Discontinue the use of funding waivers used by states to
side-step appropriating 1890 universities to the same level as
the respective state's 1862 land-grant college.
Fully investigate claims of state under-funding of 1890
universities and cooperative extension programs.
Support New and Beginning Farmers:
Forgive student loan debt so farmers and aspiring farmers
may pursue agriculture without the massive burden of debt.
Change USDA lending authority to prequalify beginning
farmers for FSA loans, and provide no interest loans to
beginning BIPOC farmers and BIPOC-led cooperatives.
Support All Ownership and Aggregation Structures:
Provide oversight of the implementation of the order for
USDA to examine the impacts of current land tenure disputes
regarding Heirs' property, fractured allotments, and Colonias
as directed in the 2018 Farm Bill.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018: Sec. 12607. 7 U.S.C.
2204i.
Fully implement the program to allow operators on Heirs'
property to obtain a FSA farm number as directed in the 2018
Farm Bill.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018: Sec. 12615. 7 U.S.C.
6622b.
Order ERS to study and make recommendations on Federal
cooperative ownership standards, to remedy the current state
patchwork policies regarding cooperative establishment,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ownership, public-private collaboration, and operation.
Acknowledge Past Discrimination by Protecting Workers and
Championing New Programs:
In the agrifood supply chain, immigrants and people of color
are overrepresented in U.S. food chain worker demographics. In
meatpacking, 44.4% of workers are Hispanic, and 25.2% are
Black.\7\ Food chain workers are often talented
agriculturalists that have not been able to secure land to farm
or safe, secure employment due to monopolistic business
practices. To begin addressing this, create a Federal fund with
mandatory contribution by mega-food chain employers to place
food chain workers who have left due to exploitative conditions
to gain employment in an independent, non-monopolized entity in
the same sector, including payments to current and former food
chain workers who experienced adverse health and exploitative
working conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Shawn Fremstad, Hye Jin Rho, & Hayley Brown. April 29, 2020.
``Meatpacking Workers are a Diverse Group Who Need Better
Protections.'' Center for Economic and Policy Research. Available at
https://cepr.net/meatpacking-workers-are-a-diverse-group-who-need-
better-protections/.
Enact the Safe Line Speeds in COVID-19 Act \8\ to suspend
and not issue any new line speed waivers, and permanently
suspend the implementation of the New Swine Slaughter
Inspection System.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 116th Congress: Safe Line Speeds in COVID-19 Act (S. 4338).
\9\ Federal Register. New Swine Slaughter Inspection System Final
Rule. Vol. 84, No. 190. October 1, 2019. Available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-01/pdf/2019-20245.pdf.
Authorize funding to support the creation of racial equity,
diversity, and inclusion priorities in 4-H and other Federal
agricultural discovery programs curriculum so young people are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
empowered to pursue a career in agriculture.
Authorize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
investigate claims of discrimination by Farm Credit Service
(FCS) institutions, and require FCS to meet SDFR lending goals.
Family Farm Action reaffi[r]ms our deep sense of thanks to Chairman
Scott for convening this hearing, those providing testimony, and the
leadership shown thus far in the 117th Congress to address systemic
racism and discrimination against Black farmers. We know there is much
work yet to be done.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our testimony and input
for the record. We look forward to working with you as you consider our
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Webster E. Davis,
Senior Policy Advisor,
Family Farm Action.
Letter 3
on behalf of collis jones, vice president, u.s. policy & strategy,
deere & company
March 25, 2021
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
RE: Statement for the Record on ``A Hearing to Review the State of
Black Farmers in the U.S.''
Dear Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
House Committee on Agriculture:
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to
submit these comments on behalf of Deere & Company (``Deere'').
In 2020, Deere joined with other partners in forming an
organization dedicated to improving the livelihoods of Black farmers.
The LEAP coalition (Legislation, Education, Advocacy, and Production
Systems) focuses on addressing the decades-long issue of heirs'
property rights, in which no clear title to farmland is recorded.
In the announcement issued by Deere launching the coalition on
September 15, 2020, the following statement was made by Marc A. Howze,
Group President, Lifecycle Solutions and Chief Administrative Officer:
``Property ownership is a driver of economic growth for individuals and
families. However, too often the benefits of ownership for those who
lack clear title cannot be truly realized.''
Joining Deere in the coalition are the Thurgood Marshall College
Fund, National Black Growers Council and we are partnering with The
Federation of Southern Cooperatives. These partners provide expertise
that complements our company's legacy of serving farmers for nearly 200
years. Further, the coalition builds on Deere's longstanding
relationships with Black farmers and organizations that have
traditionally supported them and also served as forceful advocates for
social and economic justice.
The basic principles defining LEAP and describing its mission are
outlined below:
Legislative:
Support legislation on Heirs' Property reform.
Serve as a conduit or partner in efforts to clearing title
for Black farmers.
Education:
Invest in Fellowships/Internships/Agribusiness paths.
Engage in estate planning to prevent the further
proliferation of Heir's Property.
Advocacy:
Amplify the work of The Federation of Southern Cooperatives.
Raise awareness regarding the issues and challenges
experienced by Black farmers.
Production Systems:
Education and training to support Long-term Sustainability
and Economic viability.
Access to tools, technology and innovation.
Land is a farmer's most valuable and productive asset. Yet a
majority of Black farmers--who make up about two percent of the U.S.
farm population--are believed to operate on property lacking a
documented title. At the same time, the amount of land owned by Black
farmers has fallen sharply, to less than 5 million acres compared with
over 16 million acres a century ago. The decline occurred in large part
due to discriminatory practices affecting how Black farmers acquired
and transferred their land--a form of ownership commonly called
``heirs' property.'' Many landowners also lacked the resources for
formal estate planning and passed property to their heirs without a
will. Over generations, this practice led to increasingly fractional
ownership and unclear titles.
Without such title, farmers cannot use their property as collateral
for loans and often cannot participate in government farm-support
programs or receive emergency or disaster-relief aid. To this end,
securing clear title helps eliminate systemic barriers to land
improvement and wealth building that have constrained many farmers,
particularly those in minority or underserved groups, across the United
States.
Black communities in southern states have been disproportionately
affected by these issues. However, similar situations exist in other
populations and geographies. These include White communities in
Appalachia, Native Americans on Tribal lands, and Hispanic communities
in southwestern United States. Each of these constituencies stand to
benefit from LEAP's work.
Deere has a proud history supporting racial equality as reflected
by our longstanding support for Minorities in Ag Natural Resources and
Related Sciences (MANRRS), the National Black Growers Council, 1890's
land-grant institutions and other organizations supporting Black
entrepreneurs and social justice organizations.
In addition, Deere has engaged in the work of a special committee
on racial equity and social justice of the Business Roundtable. The
group's finance subcommittee, of which Deere's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer John C. May is a member, focuses on providing access
to capital in minority communities and on other factors contributing to
persistent income disparity.
In our view, Deere is uniquely positioned to help promote public
policy solutions and corporate initiatives that help underserved
farmers gain access to capital and enjoy the advantages that come with
proven land ownership. We believe, moreover, the impact of Deere's
leadership on this issue can be further leveraged through our
participation in organizations such as LEAP.
Deere's partners in the coalition are providing the educational,
legal, and technical resources to help disadvantaged farmers secure
clear title to their land and acquire the technology and tools
necessary to make their operations more profitable, productive, and
sustainable.
Deere has made a number of investments to help ensure LEAP's
success and remove the systemic barriers undermining the success of
Black farmers. Among these is a collaboration with our dealer Tellus
Equipment to fund and support two lawyers working on land retention
efforts, making a 5 year commitment to serve as title sponsor of the
Federation of Southern Cooperative's Heirs' Property Conference and
expand its investment in the cooperative's programming.
In addition, Deere is providing funding for legal interns recruited
through the Thurgood Marshall College Fund to work at the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives. Deere has created a full-time position within
the company to oversee the LEAP effort and ensure its success.
Deere is committed to helping farmers, regardless of size or
background, have access to the vital resources needed to achieve
success and sustain their operations for generations to come. The LEAP
coalition reinforces this goal by addressing the issue of heirs'
property ownership and helping disadvantaged farmers secure clear title
to their land.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues and
to share additional information on Deere's partnership with members of
the LEAP coalition. Should the Committee have any additional questions
for Deere, we welcome the opportunity to speak with you.
Sincerely,
Collis Jones,
Vice President, U.S. Policy & Strategy.
Cc: Members of the House Committee on Agriculture.
Letter 4
on behalf of duane simpson, vice president, north america government &
industry affairs, bayer crop science
February 18, 2021
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture,
United States House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Scott:
Bayer applauds the introduction of [S. 278], the Emergency Relief
for Farmers of Color Act. This critical legislation introduced by
Senators Warnock, Stabenow, Booker, Leahy, Lujan and Klobuchar, and
included in the American Rescue Plan, is an important relief measure as
it would forgive U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan debt for
farmers of color and provide funding for outreach, research on heirs'
property, and other efforts to assist minority farmers. The $4 billion
in debt relief, and the $1 billion in additional funds, is part of the
$16 billion COVID-19 relief plan, which will add to the approximately
$40 billion farmers have received this past year.
Bayer recognizes the importance of remedying the longstanding
systemic disadvantages facing farmers of color. As documented by
Congress and acknowledged by USDA, Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic
farmers have dealt with limited access to credit and are often left out
of Federal aid. We commend the Members of Congress who have taken steps
to ensure the Federal Government addresses its past mistakes.
We also understand that it is not only just the Federal
Government's responsibility to treat farmers of color fairly. We, too,
continue to have conversations around, and seek to be conscious of, how
our products and programs are meeting the needs of minority farmers.
As a company that serves farmers of every background, Bayer remains
committed to supporting our customers of color as they push for equity
in our food and agriculture system.
Sincerely,
Duane Simpson,
Vice President,
North America Government & Industry Affairs.
CC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Honorable John Boozman
The Honorable Glenn `GT' Thompson
The Honorable Raphael Warnock
The Honorable Cory Booker
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
______
Submitted Presentation by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in
Congress from Georgia; on Behalf of Bernice Atchison, Farmer from
Chilton
County, AL and Pigford Historian
The Seven Tiers of the Black Folks Plan for Black Farmers
______
Submitted Statements by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Statement 1
on behalf of navina khanna, executive director, heal (health,
environment, agriculture, labor) food alliance
April 4, 2021
The HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance
(HEAL) is grateful for the opportunity to submit written testimony
regarding the recent hearing on the State of Black Farmers.
HEAL is a national multi-sector, multi-racial coalition led by
Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) that is building
collective power to transform our food and farm systems for the health
of our communities and the planet. Our 50+ member organizations
represent over two million rural and urban farmers, ranchers, fishers,
public health advocates, farm and food chain workers, Indigenous
groups, scientists, policy experts, community organizers, and
activists. Together, we are creating systems that are healthful for our
families, accessible and affordable for all communities, and fair to
the hard-working people who grow, distribute, prepare, and serve our
food--while protecting the air, water, and land we all depend on.
Our members know too well that the legacies of chattel slavery,
colonization, and the historical and current realities of institutional
racism have direct bearing on the socioeconomic status of Black people
nationwide. Longstanding structural and institutional racism have
excluded Black people from access to land, financial resources,
information, political standing, and educational and professional
trajectories. Such exclusion has prevented truly sustainable food
systems from being established, and created enormous barriers for
communities seeking to maintain or revive culturally appropriate
foodways and to live in balance with their ecosystems. Strengthening
support for Black people within the agriculture sector, on the other
hand, can establish paths toward long-term prosperity while helping to
secure the future of sustainable and resilient food systems.
We commend the House Committee on Agriculture for taking up the
important, long overdue issue of support for Black farmers. Below, you
will find recommendations from our members, and we look forward to
being in continued conversation with your respective staff and
departments as we collectively undertake the hard work of righting
historic wrongs and collaborating together for a future that works for
all people--and the health of our planet.
No one organization, including HEAL, can speak for all Black
communities working across our food and farming system, and we are
aware that we are part of an ecosystem that includes Black agricultural
communities with diverse strengths, challenges and perspectives. HEAL's
analysis continues to be informed by our membership and key leaders in
the landscape such as the National Black Food and Justice Alliance,
Soul Fire Farm, Land Loss Prevention Project and many more unheralded
grassroots leaders. These are the communities that have been doing the
hard work of addressing Black land loss over the last few decades and
fighting for the ability to be in the right relationship with the land
and one another. Below, we offer testimony and recommendations from our
membership.
According to the most recent United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Census data, approximately 95% of farmland owners
are white.\1\ For reference, in 1920 the United States had about 1
million \2\ Black farmers; however as of the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, this number is closer to 45,000,\3\ and just 0.52% \4\ of
the total farmland in the country is owned or operated by a Black
farmer. This is a glaring problem and a consequence of a system
designed to dispossess Black people of wealth, and Black farmers of
land. There is a long and detailed history of discrimination by the
USDA and documented efforts by Black farming and civil rights leaders'
to right these wrongs through legal means such as the Pigford cases,
policy initiatives within the farm bill and advocacy at local (state,
county, city, etc.) levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/
2017Census_Farm_Produc
ers.pdf.
\2\ http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/1920/
Farm_Statistics_By_Color_
and_Tenure.pdf.
\3\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/
2017Census_Farm_Produc
ers.pdf.
\4\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/
2017Census_Farm_Produc
ers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At HEAL, we join our members in support of efforts that aim to
address issues of land access and tenure such as the Justice for Black
Farmers Act. We recommend fully supporting the Justice for Black
Farmers Act and our members' contributions to the legislation are
rooted in the wisdom of lessons from past failures and investment in
steps towards a radical reclamation of what we know our communities
need and deserve. We also support the greater call for reparations for
Black communities. As voiced by some of our members:
Over the past 100 years, 98% of Black farmers have been
dispossessed of their land, driving the median age of the Black
farmer up to 62 years and the share of Black operators down to
1.4%. Passage of the Justice for Black Farmers Act is essential
to right the wrongs endured by our legacy farmers and to
provide opportunities for the next generation of Black farmers.
Soul Fire Farm, a NY-based rural training center for Black and
BIPOC farmers, has observed a clamor of interest for careers in
agriculture and maintains a multi-year waiting list for its
programs. The time is now.
Leah Penniman, Founding Co-Director, Soul Fire Farm.
The National Black Food & Justice Alliance's work to build
Black Land and Power and Self Determining Food Economies is
inspired by and in honor of Mrs. Dorothy Wise, a Black farmer
who made her transition after being forcibly displaced from her
farmland with her husband by armed U.S. Marshalls in 2016 based
on USDA discriminatory lending practices.
Dr. Jasmine Ratliff, Policy Manager, National Black Food and Justice
Alliance.
The U.S. Government can and should focus on an ``invest/divest''
framework, moving away from harmful practices and investing instead in
the sustainability, well-being, and safety of all communities with
community-controlled solutions.
The U.S. Government can make it easier for Black people to access
and retain land by:
Providing grants, subsidies, and incentives to make it
easier to finance and own land. These should include mechanisms
facilitating land ownership transitions, as well as reparations
to return appropriated land and to reverse land-grabs.
Providing legal aid to help Black people access and retain
land. For example, grants from USDA could fund law schools to
offer legal clinics providing free or low-cost, culturally
competent legal services tailored to Black farmers. Given
evidence of ongoing discrimination, the USDA should also
require an independent review of drivers and preventive
measures prior to foreclosures of Black-owned farmland
(Rosenberg and Stucki 2019; Keepseagle v. Vilsack; Cowan and
Feder 2013).* And, government should fund increased legal
support for the formation of cooperative ownership structures
that help Black people access and retain farmland (Taylor 2018;
Calo and De Master. 2017; Gies 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the in-text citations contained in this statement
do not have a corresponding list of citations at the end of the
document, nor is there internal citation information within the
document. It has been reproduced herein as it was received.
Reforming heirs' property laws that can protect landowners
from involuntary land loss (Mitchell 2016). The USDA must
implement the planned changes in the 2018 Farm Bill to expand
and regularize the types of documentation that can be used by
heirs' property owners to qualify for USDA credit and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conservation program eligibility (DeCaille 2018).
Generating land-focused reinvestment, for true community
self-determined economic development.
The U.S. Government can support Black farmers, particularly those
practicing community-based, sustainable agriculture, in achieving
financial security and resilience, by:
Expanding financial supports, including within key USDA
programs that offer technical assistance (for example, the
Conservation Stewardship Program) and grants for capacity
building, such as the Farming Opportunities Training and
Outreach program, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education program, and the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive
Program. Barriers to participation should be identified and
eliminated, such as by recognizing traditional best management
practices and ecological knowledge in the evaluation of
applications and proposals.
Ending discriminatory lending practices and other mechanisms
of land seizure.
Promoting community-led and -centered programming to promote
and financially facilitate sustainable business ownership among
economically marginalized populations.
Improved access to loans, including low-interest and micro-
loans, as well as loans not requiring collateral. The USDA's
Farm Service Agency launched a micro-loan program in 2013 to
better meet the needs of underserved farmers (FSA 2019; Tulman,
et al., 2016), but the limit on annual funding available must
be raised (NSAC 2019).
Financial safety nets, such as insurance and relief
programs. Since the USDA does not currently publish rates of
and utilization of Federal crop insurance or disaster payments
across racial and ethnic groups, transparency is needed to help
guide improvements.
Fair, sustainable markets that support Black farmers and
reward social and ecological well-being. Direct marketing,
farm-to-institution arrangements, food hubs, and market
diversification can raise incomes and financial viability and
can be strengthened through grants, initiatives, and
institutional procurement commitments that are inclusive of and
accessible to these communities (Hand 2010; Key 2016; Cooper
2018). Developing markets for ethnic specialty crops and
culturally relevant fruits and vegetables can leverage skills
while also contributing to local economies (WF 2019).
The government can also advance the quality and equity of
infrastructure and information. Currently, Black farmers have less
access to, ownership of, and control over several key resources related
to infrastructure and information that are pivotal in establishing
successful, resilient, and sustainable farms. For example, fewer Black
farmers have access to internet service relative to white farmers (USDA
2019). Public research institutions have not served Black farmers
equitably and have, in some cases, been used as mechanisms for
exclusion (Lee and Keys 2013; Ammons, et al., 2018; Lee and Ahtone
2020).
USDA programs can help level the playing field through the
following:
Infrastructure investments--such as targeted grants and
incentives--are needed to fund BIPOC-led improvements on-farm
(such as washing, packing, storage and processing facilities)
and in communities (funding such things as internet access,
kitchen equipment in school cafeterias to enable local sourcing
from Black farmers).
Technical assistance and outreach that serves Black farmers,
including by recognizing traditional ecological knowledge and
management as best practices. Such programs should hire
culturally competent community representatives and service
providers (e.g., lenders, insurance agents, extension agents,
educators).
Research and education that includes and engages directly
with Black farmers and communities. For example, land-grant
institutions should be accountable to a revitalized public
mission supporting such work, including sharing resources with
community-based organizations. Additional resources should be
directed to the 1890 land-grant institutions (Historically
Black Colleges and Universities), to ensure they have the same
services and support as the land-grant institutions originally
chartered in 1862 (Lee and Keys 2013).
Perhaps most critically, the U.S. Government must ensure diverse
representation and leadership across agricultural decision-making,
including grant panels, advisory boards, and committees.
Removing discriminatory barriers to Black farmers and their
networks, and supporting their leadership in sustainable and community-
driven farming, will advance the equity and resilience of the nation's
food systems (HEAL Food Alliance 2018; Carlisle, et al., 2019).
The roadmap for how Black people, and other communities of
color, have been subjugated politically, culturally and
economically, is illustrated by the history of the U.S. Food
system. While racial equity has a new popularity in our
political system, the real work to address the severed
relationships Black and Brown farmers have experienced lies in
building and restoring our relationships to the land, to our
culture, to healthy and nutritious food, to the tools and
resources for economic autonomy, and to building political
power for the decision-making that impacts our communities. The
USDA and other areas of our Federal and local governments must
commit to removing corporate influence in our government and
then to reinvesting in a long-term relationship with farmers of
color to build democratic, healthy and sustainable regional
food systems.
Midwest Farmers of Color Collective Coordination Team.
In partnership with grassroots communities, the U.S. Government has
a critical role in creating opportunities for Black people in farming
that will pave the way toward long-term prosperity and sustainability.
Black farmers and ranchers have faced and continue to face
systemic discrimination in USDA programs, leading to lack of
access to credit and generational land loss. Moving forward, it
is essential that USDA policy--whether related to credit, land
access, or climate--prioritize investment in Black farmers in a
structured way. Land Stewardship Project, as an organization
with a primarily white membership base in rural Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the Midwest, stands in solidarity with our Black
farmer and community members.
Jessica Kochick, Land Stewardship Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony.
Sincerely,
Navina Khanna,
Executive Director,
HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food Alliance.
Statement 2
on behalf of tanya ward jordan, president, coalition for change, inc.
(c4c)
As President of the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C), I (Tanya Ward
Jordan) submit the present statement for inclusion in the hearing
record on the State of Black Farmers in the United States.
The C4C is a public interest volunteer and whistleblower group
formed to eradicate employment discrimination and retaliation in the
Federal sector. It also serves as an informational support network for
present and former Federal employees injured due to such unlawful acts.
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) employees have complained to
our organization about widespread discrimination. We find such reports
most troubling.
The C4C recognizes that the culture of internal workplace
discrimination harms employees. It also hampers USDA's ability to
provide fair and efficient services to the Black farmers. One key
measure we can take to improve the profitability and sustainability of
Black farmers is to bolster the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's (EEOC) oversight of USDA's complaint activity. Towards
this goal, C4C recommends that the House Agriculture Committee inquire
into the U.S. EEOC's hearing, appeal, and field audit activity linked
to USDA complaints.
It is key to note that the C4C had been meeting with Mr. Carlton
Hadden, EEOC's Director of the Office of Federal Operations, (OFO), to
recommend and spur reforms that would address the culture of racism,
sexism, and intimidation operating within the USDA that impacts Black
farmers, USDA employees and other Federal employees. To our dismay, the
EEOC's efforts to address C4C's recommended EEO reforms and Federal
employee concerns halted abruptly after the 2016 United States
presidential election.
Notwithstanding any inaction of the EEOC, I along with Paulette
Taylor, the C4C's Civil Rights Chair, presented Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) reforms to the late Representative Elijah Cummings.
He first introduced our crafted reforms in H.R. 1557 \1\ Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2015 and later in H.R. 135.
Remarkably, on January 1, 2021, lawmakers adopted and included the EEO
reforms we presented to the late Congressman in the law aptly called
the Elijah Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2020.
[The reforms can be found under the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4545890/user-clip-coalition-
change-inc-instrumental-addressing-workplace-injustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expressly, Black farmers and employees complain that when
discrimination is found, USDA rarely if ever disciplines law-breaking
employees. A key reform in the Elijah Cummings Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination Act calls for the EEOC to make disciplinary
referrals to the Office of Special Counsel when discrimination is
found. The C4C recommended this reform after learning, via Freedom of
Information Act request, the EEOC had failed (over several years) to
refer any cases to the OSC for possible disciplinary action.
In closing, the EEOC can play a key role in addressing the
discriminatory culture of USDA. An improved workplace culture will
benefit the Black farmers and others seeking equitable treatment in
need of USDA programs and services. For this reason, the C4C recommends
that the House Agriculture Committee take a critical look into the
EEOC's oversight of the USDA complaint program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The EEOC, which is to eradicate discrimination, consistently
fails to hold officials accountable for violating the Federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Program guidelines. For example, a review of
USDA data collected under the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act reflects that the USDA
is delinquent in posting No FEAR data and that for the ``2019'' period
shown on average the USDA exceeded the 180 day complaint processing
time for investigating complaints. As of April 2, 2021, USDA most
recent post of No FEAR cumulative complaint activity covers Fiscal Year
2019. See data at https://www.usda.gov/nofear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement 3
on behalf of rural coalition/coalicion rural, et al.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alabama State Association of Cooperatives; Concerned Citizens of
Tillery; Cottage House, Inc.; North Carolina Association of Black
Lawyers Land Loss Prevention Project; Oklahoma Black Historical
Research Project, Inc.; Operation Spring Plant, Inc.
For More Information Contact: John Zippert, RC Chairperson, Rural
Coalition, Eutaw, Alabama; Lorette Picciano, Executive Director, Rural
Coalition, 1029 Vermont Avenue NW Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20005;
Website: www.ruralco.org; Savonala (Savi) Horne, ESQ, Executive
Director; Land Loss Prevention Project, 401 N. Mangum Street, 2nd
Floor, Durham, NC 27701, www.landloss.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Black farmers have been some of our nation's most vital stewards of
the land, productive and industrious farmers, and resilient and
determined producers. Remarkably, they have also used their farming and
business acumen to produce more generations of farmers and landowners,
schools, college graduates, separate business ventures, progressive
community organizations, and more. Many Black farmers and their
communities thrived until they made the decision to acquire loans or
other financing from the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The USDA was supposedly designed to help farmers in times of
expansion, blight, and disasters. Yet, its racist lending and
supervisory policies caused countless Black farmers unwarranted stress
and heart ache, debilitating illnesses, financial ruin, constant
threats of government takeover, and premature deaths. Consequently,
Black farmers continue their more than century-old struggle for justice
and equality from the U.S. Government.
Matthew Grant (1918-2001) and Florenza Moore Grant (1921-2001) were
farmers in Tillery, Halifax County, North Carolina. In the 1940s, they
bought their family to the Tillery Resettlement Farms community under
the Federal Resettlement Administration that offered landless rural
people an opportunity for hard work and survival. The Tillery
Resettlement (Colored Section) was established as a segregated
community with African American families like the Grants receiving
smaller farms, smaller houses, and less farm equipment than their white
neighbors. African American farmers were offered an opportunity to
purchase land in the flood plain of the Roanoke River, while the White
area of the Resettlement was out of the river's reach.
Toiling under the material and mental pressures of segregation,
Matthew and Florenza raised a family and became leaders in their
community. In the early 1970s, under pressures of mechanization of
agriculture and competition from big agribusiness, they borrowed money
under a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that was supposed
to help small farmers. They believed that unlike the local government,
with its historical role in maintaining racial oppression, the Federal
program would be fair and supportive of a rapidly disappearing pillar
in the nation--the African American family farmer.
By the late 1970s, the Grant family realized their hopes were
misplaced. African American farmers were given smaller loans at higher
rates than White farmers. In the spring, when White farmers were
receiving funds to buy seed and fertilizer, African American farmers
were still waiting for their loans. In the local Agriculture Department
office, the Grants and their neighbors were told to wait until all
White farmers had been seen first. They watched as checks were given
out to Whites, only to be told that their money had not yet arrived.
Loans to the Grants and other African American farmers were closely
supervised, requiring extra signatures and trips to the county seat
before farm supplies could be purchased. These hard working, proud
survivors of the rural south, farming land that their slave ancestors
worked for plantation owners, were treated with disrespect and racial
hatred.
Drought years and discriminatory practices prevented the Grants
from repaying the loan during the 1970s. In 1981 they signed a Consent
Judgment against their property in an agreement that the USDA would
release farm equipment and the Grants would withdraw a discrimination
lawsuit. This according to the USDA was a ``settlement of sorts'' that
would allow the Grants to continue farming and moving on with their
lives, but the USDA refused to work with them on a means of repayment
on the delinquent debt. Subsequently, Matthew and Florenza's children
tried to ``assume the debt,'' but their proposed monthly payment plan
was not accepted. Matthew was actually told by the FmHA district
director, ``It does not matter who you go to see, who you bring or what
you come up with, we are going to sale you out.'' Meanwhile, White
farmers who had been affected by crop losses were given flexibility to
settle their debts. Matthew and Florenza did not deny the debt, but
they protested that their financial situation had been worsened by
illegal racists practices.
In 1996, the USDA admitted that it had discriminated against the
Grant family. However, they prevented the Grants from collecting the
settlement that could have paid off their debt. Since that time the
Grant family has worked without success to achieve a reasonable
settlement with the government. Matthew and Florenza Moore Grant both
died in 2001, 6 months apart from one another.
The Grant family requests that the USDA clear the Matthew and
Florenza Moore Grant family debt, meet with our family to discuss an
adequate settlement for years of discrimination and turmoil, and assist
our family with starting an agricultural education fund for young
students interested in farming and being stewards of the land.
Cumulative Impact and Consequences of Discrimination
Experiences such as that of the Grant family are not uncommon, when
alternate financial arrangements are used to prevent permanent loss of
land, especially when the underlying factor is discriminatory treatment
by the government. The USDA has maintained that the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act does not cover the impact of pain and suffering. The
cumulative impact to the communities where these families farmed
included a loss of feeling of good faith in any sort of debt settlement
with the government. As a result, many farmers were unwilling to deal
with USDA.
The Secretary and the Congress are urged first to hear their
stories. As Section 1006 of the American Rescue Plan is implemented, we
also urge that the Secretary consider how BIPOC who've taken over
family operations family farm can be given a release from prior debts
as long as their debt arose out of some discriminatory actions. USDA
and the Congress should take such action to assure that the cloud over
the family is lifted so that the next generation farmers can
participate in USDA programs on their own as new and beginning farmers.
Their eligibility should not be barred because of a look back to debts
of their parents or anybody else within their family who had the
previous ownership of the farm.
The following excerpt from the introduction of the Statement by
John Zippert that the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land
Assistance Fund and the Rural Coalition to the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Energy, and Research on March 27, 2007 summarizes our past
recommendation Congress, including issues that remain relevant today:
``Collectively, the Federation, and the Rural Coalition and
its members and allies, have worked with thousands of farmers
on the intricacies of their dealings with USDA and to seek
structural change both administratively and in policy to assure
equity and accountability in programs and services.
``Over the past decade, we have supplied documents, analysis
and testimony to the Civil Rights Action Team, the National
Small Farms Commission, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission. A half dozen of us served on the National
Small Farms Commission, and we have also participated on other
committees and in many sessions with the Secretary and the
staff of the Department. We have led efforts to institute the
USDA Partners meeting held annually for the past 3 years to
allow USDA to develop relationships and understanding of the
work and experience of its Community Based Organization
Partners.
``Our collaborative legal and legislative work included the
1987 Agriculture Credit Act, the Minority Farmers Rights Act of
1990 that was accepted as section 2501 of the 1990 Farm Bill,
the 1994 Agriculture Reorganization Act, and collaborative
efforts towards passage of the 1999 Waiver of the Statute of
Limitations that removed a critical barrier to the settlement
of the longstanding class action lawsuits. Over the years, we
have also worked on disaster response, especially following
hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
``We have also worked with this Committee on the most recent
2002 Farm Bill. We appreciate the support the Members of this
Committee who helped assure that structural changes instituted
to promote equity were included in that bill.
``The average age of farmers continues to rise, especially
among African American and other socially disadvantaged
producers. For many years, inadequacies and inequities in
programs and services have hastened the loss of African-
American and other people-of-color owned farms. Access to
credit is essential for all agricultural producers and those
who aspire to be agricultural producers. This Committee has the
ability to take the actions needed to assure that new
generations of people of color farmers and ranchers will have
access to land and production.
``In my years of work with the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, I have never met a Black
farmer who was not discriminated against. I believe the same is
true for most of the diverse group of African-American, Latino,
American Indian, Asian American and female farmers I have
encountered within the Rural Coalition. As you well know, there
remain issues surrounding the settlement of the Pigford v.
Veneman and other still pending class action lawsuits against
USDA that need to be addressed. We will provide a supplemental
appendix for the record with updated statistics of the status
of this settlement and on late claims.
``For the past several months, our organizations have worked
with a group of colleagues who represent a wide and diverse
array of minority farmer and farmworker organizations called
the Farm and Food Policy Diversity Initiative. As you begin
your work on the 2007 Farm Bill, we share with you the
collective wisdom of our organizations and our partners on some
essential changes that Congress can and should make in order to
prevent the actions that necessitated legal action in the first
place and assure transparency and accountability in the
provision of services.
``We want to help bring about the day when African American
and other minority farmers can turn their attention to growing
crops and revitalizing rural communities instead of filing
complaints and lawsuits to secure the equitable service to
which they are entitled in the first place.
``Because of the cumulative effects of many years of
discrimination and neglect, we are also proposing remedial
measures and special services intended to reverse the impact of
years of discrimination and neglect on many minority farmers.
Our other recommendations include actions that can be taken to
improve services to the many farmers who have suffered
disasters in recent years, and some ideas on how to assure that
new farmer programs will also serve socially disadvantaged
producers.''
We have also attached for the use of this Committee an extensive
appendix of the research and policy recommendations Rural Coalition
with our members have developed and shared over several decades.
Central to this work especially as related to Black farmers were our
founding members including the Rural Advancement Fund of the National
Sharecroppers Fund (founded 1937) and the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (founded 1967), and members who have
formed and joined since, including Concerned Citizens of Tillery,
Cottage House, Inc., North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Land
Loss Prevention Project, Operation Spring Plant and Oklahoma Black
Historical, and our allies and partners including Intertribal
Agriculture Council and Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation
and the National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid.
The attached Congressional Testimonies include the many policy
recommendations we jointly made over the years to this Committee and to
the U.S. Senate since the first hearings in 2002. On the issue of
credit, we have also attached numerous policy briefs related to Farm
Credit, many authored by our Policy Advisor, Quinton Robinson, who in
2002 was the House Agriculture Committee staff member who organized the
first hearing in the Subcommittee on Departmental Operations. Of
particular relevance at present is the need for USDA Farm Services
Agency to issue regulations to fully implement the Equitable Relief
Provisions and the Heirs Property Relending Fund passed in the 2018
Farm Bill
Over these years, our team of collaborated have worked with the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees to develop and promote passage
of 40 sections passed in farm bills and related legislation since 1986.
In those years, we worked with Rep. Edolphus Towns, whose staff member
Brenda Pillars gave us access to a typewriter when the opportunity for
a new amendment arose, including the amendment for matching grants for
state mediation programs. The most extensive work began in the 1987
Agriculture Credit Act when discrimination by race and ethnicity was
first defined in the context of Federal Agriculture Policy.
It continued in section 2501 of the 1990 Farm Bill, which
authorized the first program to tangibly support the organizations who
serve Black and other farmers who had suffered discrimination, called
the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers (OASDVFR). That statute for the first time that recognized the
importance of this network of community-based organizations, including
many who testified in this hearing, by making them eligible for grants
and contracts. We will underscore the importance of the direct one-on-
one technical assistance they have long been doing as a critical factor
in stopping foreclosures and helping Black farmers hold onto their
land.
We call particular attention to the aforementioned USDA Partners
Process. Beginning in 2005 and continuing into the Obama
Administration, this process convened a series of dialogues, or
conversations, on critical barriers faced by BIPOC farmers and the
community-based groups who served them with interagency teams of USDA
career staff. The process was led by Shirley Sherrod and other CBO
leaders. We estimate that as many as 500 people contributed over those
5 years. The comprehensive A Time to Change: A Report by the Assessment
Conversations Team,\1\ Sept. 22, 2010 remains useful today both to
measure progress and to identify additional changes. It was structured
to identify problems, propose solutions including statutory changes
needed, and also to describe what success would like. Many of the
recommendations informed our proposals to you for the 2008 Farm Bill,
and around 30 passed in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://drive.google.com/file/d/
10rJEsuSOef1_3jOhA3HCDEkCIHJ_cDPr/view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, many recommendations developed by the wide network
of community-based organization who work directly every day with this
nation's Black farmers and ranchers, and other Tribal, Latino, Asian
Pacific, and other small-scale producers have been passed into law,
with some implemented more fully than ever. We have also mobilized our
communities to help lawmakers understand the degree of support for this
proposals, including with sign on letters and collaboration with
Members of Congress especially in Congressional Black and Hispanic
Caucuses, annual Dear Colleague Letters. One of the early ones was led
by Rep. Sanford Bishop who for years led efforts to continually press
for more funding for the 2501 Program, from $1 million to its present
funding level. We will continue to work also with Secretary Vilsack and
his team to assure these funds more effectively reach and support the
eligible entities as defined by statute. We will be forwarding
additional recommendations to you on how the full suite of Outreach,
Beginning Farmer and Local Food programs can best complement each
other.
The drafting and action by this Committee in this year of 2021
represents a historic and significant step forward in a new effort to
begin to right some of the longstanding wrongs faced by Black farmers.
We have attached for your record a copy of our March 3 sign on letter
that we prepared to help support passage of the historic provisions he
included in the American Rescue Plan and a brief authored by our Policy
Advisor on the relevant authorities supporting these provisions. We are
deeply grateful to Chairman David Scott and the Members of this
Committee, several of whom we have worked with for decades, for this
action.
Relevant Data and Research
We are already working with USDA on the implementation of Sections
1005 and 1006 of the American Rescue Plan. As the Committee's work of
oversight continues and the preparation for the 2023 Farm Bill
commences, we share additional proposals we are refining with our
members and allies to support Black farmers in securing land tenure for
their families and generations into the future and restoring the
agriculture as an economic base of their communities.
Particularly as the debate over climate mitigation begins, we will
be highlighting the importance issue of land tenure. New investments of
Federal dollars over time have often favored larger scale farmers at
the expense of others. But as the recent pandemic has shown us, crises
such as these cause fundamental disruptions in existing food chains.
Resiliency now and in the future point toward the value of reorienting
the processing and distribution of food to shorter and more direct
local and regional farm to food networks that are closer and more
readily adaptable to serve the food needs of some of this nation's most
vulnerable communities.
We will specifically address the issue of heirs property later in
this piece. First, we thought it helpful to share a sampling of charts
we have developed in connection with a research project under an
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative project with the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture. This AFRI standard research project,
``Community Resilience Through Land Tenure Rights,'' will examine the
impacts of land tenure arrangements, non-ownership and related
encumbrances on the management of small to medium-sized farm operations
in a diverse cross section of socially disadvantaged agricultural
communities. Rural Coalition and its co-principal investigators include
both CBO's and researchers from Tuskegee University and Kansas State
University. North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Land Loss
Prevention Project are co-Principal Investigators, with almost a dozen
other CBO partners.
We will also use similar profiles for in related research under a
Sustainable Agriculture and Research grant, Securing Land Tenure Rights
for Heirs Property Owners. The North Carolina Association of Black
Lawyers Land Loss Prevention Project is Principal Investigator. The
Rural Coalition and Tuskegee University and Virginia State University
are Co-Principal Investigators along with multiple CBOs and Farmers in
the Southern Region. The second grant focuses also on the quality and
availability of legal services.
These charts provide a snapshot of the trends in loss of land over
time as far back as 1959 for Orangeburg county. There also charts for
Barber Co[.], AL and Halifax county, NC. While there are specific
issues with data at various points in time, we have found that the
trends reflected are consistent with data we and others including the
1890 Universities have collected.
What the charts clearly provide is a sense of the cumulative impact
of the past and in some places ongoing failure to address and halt
discrimination. The result is the unjust and unnecessary loss of land
by African American producers whose place on the land predates the
arrival of many others in farming today.
State of Black Farmers in the U.S.--Historic Land Tenure by County
Change in Farm Numbers, Orangeburg County, South Carolina (1950-2017)
Black/African American Land Tenure in Barbour County, Alabama, 1964-
2017
Net Cash Farm Income by Race in Barbour County, Alabama, 2007-2017
Black/African American Land in farms (acres) in Dale County, Alabama,
1969-2017
Decrease in Black/African American Farms and Land in Halifax County,
North Carolina, 1978-2017
Chart Average Government Payments by Race Ethnicity in Halifax County,
North Carolina, 2007-2017
In almost every county we have already researched over several
decades, land ownership has become more concentrated. Many farmers and
ranchers have been unable to retain their land. The evidence of
disparate treatment is particularly notable with respect to Black
farmers and ranchers.
In collaboration with our farmer and rancher leaders, we organized
several participatory research projects designed to better understand
their views of USDA. The first was around issues related to
participation in Crop Insurance programs. The second followed a series
of farmer-led training we developed with our members. Our reports are
included in the appendix, but the following charts provide a snapshot
of how the needs of farmers overlap or diverge with the structure and
operation of USDA programs and services.
Table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Participants from Rural
Coalition Financial Training Project (2004/2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender
Male 67.5
Female 32.5
(1,048)
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian 24.8
Asian American 3.5
Black/African American 54.9
White 5.0
Hispanic/Latino 10.7
Other 1.1
(1,052)
Highest Level of Education
Less than High School Degree 29.6
High School Degree 34.8
Some College, No Bachelor's Degree 29.6
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 6.0
(1,050)
Total Farm Income (after expenses) in 2003
Less than $4,999 54.0
$5,000-$9,999 23.5
$10,000-$19,999 13.9
$20,000-$29,999 4.3
$30,000 or More 4.3
(814)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2: Farm Characteristics of Participants from Rural Coalition
Financial Training Project (2004/2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Own Land 84.5
(911/1,078)
Rent Land from Others 38.8
(409/1,053)
Own and Rent Land 28.1
(295/1,048)
Acres in agricultural production in 2003 *
Mean 85.2
Median 15.0
Minimum-Maximum 0-2,400
(937)
Acres in agricultural production in 2004 *
Mean 87.4
Median 15.0
Minimum-Maximum 0-2,600
(935)
Produced Commodity Crops in 2003 or 2004 54.5
(561/1,030)
Produced Fruits/Vegetables in 2003 or 2004 54.6
(553/1,013)
Raised Livestock in 2003 or 2004 47.1
(480/1,020)
Produced Commodity Crops, Fruits/Vegetables and 14.3
Livestock in 2003 or 2004 (137/960)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ranchers often did not include grazing acreage in their estimates of
land in agricultural production.
Therefore, the numbers presented here are conservative estimates.
Table 3: Risk Management Strategies of Participants from Rural Coalition
Financial Training Project (2004/2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Strategy Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Risk Management Plan 4.7
(45/961)
Use a Tax Accountant 42.7
(439/1,029)
Make Use of IRS Form Schedule F 18.6
(165/886)
Ever Purchased Crop Insurance
Yes, Currently Have Policy 9.6
Yes, But No Current Policy 5.8
No, Never 84.6
(971)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4: Labor Use of Participants from Rural Coalition Financial
Training Project (2004/2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Management Strategy Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spouse, Children or Other Family Members Receive Wages 17.7
from Farm (154/869)
Number of Full-Time Employees
None 85.4
1-10 14.0
11-20 0.3
21 or More 0.3
(988)
Number of Regular Part-Time Employees
None 80.6
1-10 17.9
11-20 0.9
21 or More 0.6
(987)
Employed any Seasonal or Migrant Employees in the Past 16.4
Year (127/773)
Any Seasonal or Migrant Employees Participate in H-2A 50.4
Program (64/127)
Understand Tax Rules for Farm Labor 14.5
(126/870)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5: Awareness of and Participation in Government Programs Among
Participants from Rural Coalition Financial Training Project (2004/2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency/Program Percent Aware
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Services Agency Credit Programs 52.5
(533/1,015)
Farm Services Agency Disaster Payments 54.4
(522/959)
Natural Resources Conservation Service 48.7
(465/955)
Cooperative Extension Service 58.1
(567/976)
Rural Development 42.0
(400/953)
Risk Management Agency 35.7
(335/939)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Program
Participation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Applied for a Loan from USDA 27.9
(234/839)
Ever Been Denied a Loan from USDA 91.3
(210/230)
Ever Received a Loan from USDA 32.0
(72/225)
Ever Received USDA Disaster Assistance 36.2
(354/977)
Participate in any Annual Commodity Program 13.5
(113/839)
Participate in any Conservation Program 8.1
(84/1040)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The farmer/mentors requested that we ask not only questions about
the number of farmers who prepared schedule F of their tax return. Only
18.6% said yes. They also wanted to know how many used tax preparers.
40% responded they did. Many of the groups who participated in this
research continue to this day provide direct technical assistance to
producers on the importance of good financial records, and the need
also to provide required reports to document production and report
losses.
These findings also underscore the importance of sustaining
community-based organizations who are trusted by farmers for assistance
in understanding and navigating USDA programs.
Also instructive is one chart from an earlier study which included
a slightly different population of producers. We will have more to
share as this Committee begins work on the next farm bill and on
climate issues. We looked at the level of participants in all types of
insurance and these are our findings from the year 2002.
Table 4. Insurance Use from Small, Limited Resource and Minority Farmers
Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Frequency Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently use any form of insurance
Editor's note: there is no
corresponding table note for the entry
with the asterisk. The table has been
published herein as received from Rural
Coalition/Coalicion Rural.
Respondents answering yes 116 137
84.7 100.0
Types of insurance used
Health insurance * 97 83.6
116 100.0
Dental insurance 43 37.1
116 100.0
Accident insurance 39 33.6
116 100.0
Life insurance 74 63.8
116 100.0
Disability insurance 29 25.0
116 100.0
Auto insurance 100 86.2
116 100.0
General homeowner or renter insurance 84 72.4
116 100.0
Disaster insurance 25 21.6
116 100.0
General liability insurance for farm 43 37.1
operation 116 100.0
Crop insurance 29 25.0
116 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We underscore the importance of the Farm Opportunities Outreach and
Training Programs, including the Outreach and Assistance Program for
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers. Our community-based
organization members routinely accompany farmers the farmers we serve
to USDA offices to make sure they are prepared to request services they
need and to navigate USDA systems.
Our research findings highlight the need for improved connections
and restoration of trust with USDA. Our organizations led efforts to
establish systems that would allow USDA to monitor how these systems
are working. One particular recommendation as far back as the 2002 Farm
Bill is to require the farmer be provided a Receipt for Service on each
visit to the agency. This was adopted in 2008 as a require to provide a
Receipt upon request. Rep. (and now HUD Secretary) Marcia Fudge offered
an amendment during the 2014 Farm Bill Mark-up which is now a statutory
requirement whose validity is affirmed including in an Administrative
Law Judge opinion on a farm appeal. We remind the Committee that the
required receipt for service is not uniformly provided in all offices
and farmers are still facing push back for asking or outright refusal
of their request.
Just last evening, our Rural Coalition Board Member Barbara Shipman
of Cottage House, Inc. in Ariton, Alabama shared this story. ``I had
one of my farmers to go into a particular NRCS office and FSA office to
request assistance. The young lady threw and not only hit him in the
face with his folder, but she also told him `get out of the office and
don't come back until you have 3 years' worth of farm records.' Let me
tell you please--returning military members have PTSD it didn't take
the snap of a finger to get them in the military zone again so that's
why I go with them. I ended up having to talk to State Director. He
said he was going to get involved. He called back to say he did so and
said I should have no problem with anybody else like that.''
Mrs. Shipman, herself an Army veteran of the Gulf War, routinely
welcomes recently returned service members from Fort Rucker to consider
farming. This particularly newly returned Veteran had grown up on a
farm and had a plan for producing pecans and goats.
She also recounted that she recently accompanied two farmers to
visit four separate county offices to determine who was supposed to
serve them. One was not open for a prescheduled appointment; another
was closed. In the last office, the staff member agreed to get on the
computer to ascertain the correct service center. She said it was
closing time, but she could provide service there at another time.
Barbara told her, ``that's fine as long as he leaves here with two
things--a letter of receipt for service that provides his farm and
tract number and a copy of the technology map of where his land is
located. Then in future all you have to do give the address and you can
pull it down on the computer and print it all. When we walked out of
the office, I told him that when you get ready to go back to the office
you let me know. We will go together because that's what I do. I will
walk him through how to get those things he wants, and I know he's in
that computer system. He can't march over to the NRCS, no way, if he's
not in the computer system in FSA, step number one.'' She works with
40-60 farmers every year to assure service is done right. Without her,
``they'll just turn him away and they won't even tell them about the
receipt for service and they will not tell him he's due a copy of that
topology map of his land or get him a farm and tract number--because
that farmer number goes on that letter receipt for something so when he
goes in the next time he has to do his put his farm in tracking down in
the system and it brings up his file right and then he should have
access.''
Technical Service Providers and Community Based Organizations--Mrs.
Shipman has many other examples to share. Community based organizations
need to have a sustained funding, perhaps in new ways, to assure the
many CBO staff members who provide such services can be compensated,
retained and prepare to train others to perform these services. They
could form the foundation of a network of CBO based technical service
provides with authority to work on technical assistance for both FSA
and NRCS programs.
She and many of our other members, including Mr. Willard Tillman of
the Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, have the stressed the
need for ongoing support in order to do the work necessary to help
farmers and ranchers connect with USDA. They are also able to build
relationships with service centers and assure farmers are able to do
what they need to do. These CBO technical service provides are also
provide the invaluable service of calling inadequate service to the
attention of USDA leaders at the state and national level, so immediate
intervention can be made, with appropriate accountability. It is
critical to set in place new policy to provide this kind of trusted
technical support to help farmers, ranchers, forest land owners and
their families secure land and rebuild local economies.
Technical Support Providers are now used extensively in
conservation programs. Authority should be provided to allow these
providers who work with CBO's to cover FSA programs also. This would
help CBO's to build a sustainable network of next generation leaders
trained by our skilled leaders who have supplied technical assistance
to our farmer members for over 4 decades. We believe that such
investments would improve family wealth, stabilize land values and
secure a tax base with improvements to the education, public works and
the economic situation of the whole community.
Critical and Continuing Issues--County Committees
Our early collaborative work began in 1997, when we convened a
group to address the issue of Farm Service Agency County Committees.
After a week of training and dialogue at USDA headquarters coordinated
in cooperation with NRCS Chief Pearlie Reed and FSA Credit Director Lou
Ann Kling, we examined voting patterns, and eligibility and access
issues. Our members looked at county data of eligible voters and how
many voted in county committee elections, and ballot counting
procedures. We encouraged turnout with some results in subsequent
years.
We have also examined over the past few decades the data systems of
USDA and how transparency and accountability could be advanced with
modification of these systems. In 2002, we prepared testimony for the
Senate Committee on Agriculture where we were invited to testify by
Senator Richard Lugar. This statement, which we have not located, was
very similar to the one shared of the House hearing at the same time.
Senator Lugar, with Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln and others,
included language we recommended to assure transparency and
accountability in USDA practices, including the collection and
publication of data on the participate rates of producers in USDA
programs by race, gender and ethnicity. These provisions were added and
were updated in subsequent farm bills. More work is necessary to assure
these are available to farmers and groups working with them at the
county level. They are also essential to help the Secretary and his
team to in a proactive way identify offices that are doing a good job,
and offices where improvements or other action are needed.
For many years we urged USDA and the Congress to move from a
complaint generated system of solving exclusions proactively instead of
only after farmers had have to enter the long and risky process of
appeals, civil rights complaints and litigation. We urge the Secretary
to also engage the office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
to have the ability to transform systems of analysis necessary to
offset problems before the pose a barrier to more farmers.
We share the following story from our Rural Coalition newsletter of
December 2000 which recounts the proceedings of the first Senate
Agriculture Committee Hearing on Civil Rights in September that year.
County Committees--Below is a snapshot--the last we have--of data
on the number of votes cast in the county election of 2009. This
election was in only one Local Administrative area.
Data on the over composition of county committees is also included
in some attached statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Ballots Cast By Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in 2009 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender Ethnicity American Asian Black or Native Unknown White Total
Indian or African Hawaiian or Ballots
Alaskan American Other Cast by
Native Pacific Gender and
Islander Ethnicity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female Hispanic or Latino 73 2 34 9 145 960 1,223
Not Hispanic or Latino 172 108 408 226 3,316 4,230
Unknown 123 78 319 147 1,095 1,782 3,544
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female Total 368 188 761 382 1,240 6,058 8,997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Hispanic or Latino 100 52 27 10 366 1,332 1,887
Not Hispanic or Latino 392 106 823 125 44,837 46,283
Unknown 397 175 992 113 774 40,435 42,868
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Total 871 333 1,842 248 1,140 86,604 91,038
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Hispanic or Latino 14 3 9 1 314 494 835
Not Hispanic or Latino 142 95 448 28 277 78,620 79,610
Unknown 116 45 607 41 1,217 66,204 68,230
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Total 272 143 1,064 70 1,808 145,318 148,675
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown Hispanic or Latino 0 0 3 8 92 103
Not Hispanic or Latino 3 20 43 11 416 1,325 1,818
Unknown 6 6 6 7 1,772 454 2,251
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown Total 9 26 52 18 2,196 1,871 4,172
==========================================================================================
Total Ballots Cast by 1,520 690 3,719 718 6,384 239,851 252,882
Race \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballot Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAA Total Eligible Ballots 2,021,637
LAA Total Ballots Cast 252,494
Percentage of Eligible Voters that Cast Ballots 12%
National Total of Ballots Disqualified 13,156
Percentage of Ballots Disqualified vs. Ballots Received 5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents only those LAAs in which an election was held in 2009.
\2\ Due to producers' ability to select more than one race, the Total Ballots Cast in 2009 may be greater than LAA Total Ballots Cast in Ballot Summary
Table.
When requirements were added in the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills to
authorize the assignment of minority advisors to county committees and
to update election provisions, the Congress also changed the law to tie
eligibility to participate on county committees to those who
participated in farm programs. This should be extended to include
farmers who are eligible to participate and registered with USDA, even
if they choose not to participate.
However, issues with county committees also continue. In the past 2
weeks, we were contacted by an Oklahoma farmer who is employed in
another state. He has informed the County Committee a few years ago
that the farm had been transferred to his name. He was seeking help
because he currently has a neighbor who has been planting wheat on land
that belongs to him and filing claims for payments. He has provided
documentation to show that the FSA county office reached wrote to the
farmer demanding he send the certified lease so the neighboring farmer
could collect his payment. The farmer owner wrote a cease and desist
letter to his neighbor and asked the office to address the issue of the
illegal claims. He also noted that the lease given to the office by the
neighbor was fraudulent. While he was seeking response from the county,
he reported that the staff asked him not to report this as it would
``get a former employee in trouble.'' A county committee member also
asked him if he wants to sell his land.
We believe these issues merit a full review of the role and
practices of the use of county committees and their continuing failure
to include and serve the needs of all farmers but especially Black
Farmers. In the next farm bill, we believe it is time that this
Committee review ways to replace county committees with a more
professional and accountable system.
FSA Farm Credit--Immediate Actions Needed
We have worked extensively on the issues of Farm Credit over many
years and hope we can provide additional recommendations as the
Committee addresses those particular issues.
At present, the two most essential credit related issues are to
assure that Farm Service Agency issue regulations and implement the
following:
(1) Ensure Equitable Relief Provisions to protect the farmer in the
case of errors or intentional actions in loan agreements by
Farm Service Agency staff members, and
(2) Implement the Heirs Property Relending Program.
With respect to the Relending program, Congress since the 2018 Farm
Bill has appropriated $20 million for FSA to relend to entities
qualified to lend as community development financial institution, and
who have significant demonstrated experience serving the needs of
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
There are such institutions available to begin working with
families to resolve heirs property encumbrances which keep them out of
full participation in USDA programs. These funds are urgently needed.
The pandemic has caused the loss of over \1/2\ million members of our
society. Some of them are farmers. Their families urgently need
assistance in handling the difficult issues of settling estates. Making
these program available will enable the groups who know how to do this
work to immediately assist Black and other people of color landowners
to secure land tenure in a way the addresses the rights of all interest
holders, and to emerge with a succession plan to guide that family in
the future.
Direct and Guaranteed Loans and Borrowers Rights
Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan provides funds to Black
farmers and other people of color borrowers to pay off loans from both
FSA and Farm Credit Administration. We will have attached a brief we
provided to the General Accounting Office in advance of the study they
did on the availability of credit to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers. The report suggests several issues for the attention of the
Administration and the Congress. We will prepare future input on these
provisions.
It is also important to understand the issues farmers are
encountering due to lack of data collection and clear procedures to
assure that all borrowers rights, including the Equal Credit
Opportunity are assured. We have recommended to the Secretary that
clear procedures for Farm Credit Borrowers to identify themselves as
socially disadvantaged and eligible for the Emergency Relief provided
must be set in place.
We further refer you to correspondence between Rural Coalition and
both the FSA and the Farm Credit Administration referring to the case
of a young farmer. We have redacted the farmer's name. These letters
show how FCA says go to the lender, the lender says to go to FCA, and
FSA asserts they have no authority on guaranteed loans. These
illustrate the point that there is no clarity for the borrower and no
real explanation if anyone has authority to act if farmers feel they
were discriminated against on a guaranteed loan.
We urge Congress to address these gaps. We further endorse the
recommendations provided in the hearing by the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives that a separate entity within or similar to other farm
credit institutions be established to attend to the unmet needs of this
sector of farmers and ranchers.
Heirs Property, Insecure Land Tenure, Climate and Rural Communities
The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund has
been identifying the importance of addressing heirs property issues for
decades, beginning with a 1980 Report by the Emergency Land Fund.
In 2017, the Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project convened
the 100 Farmers Summit In Oklahoma City in March 2017 for in input in
advance of the 2018 Summit.\1\ The 100 Summit Report: Addressing the
Needs and Concerns of the Underserved Minority Family Farming Community
is included in the attachments. The following issues raised by the 100
Black farmers on heirs property include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, with Rural
Coalition, et al.,\1\ The 100 Summit Report: Addressing the Needs and
Concerns of the Underserved Minority Family Farming Community, 2017.
(A) Specific Issues Related to Heir Property--The following were the
key issues that needed to be addressed to restore access to
programs for producers lacking clear title or lease on the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
land they farm or seek to farm:
Heir Property: If you have land but there is no will or
document saying who will be the administrator of it, your
ability to administer and use it is very difficult. If
there is not an administrator for the land, you will not be
able to get a loan through the USDA. For example, when you
want to take out a loan, but you are the beneficiary of
land along with your siblings--you have to get all other
siblings to sign on to your loan. You will end up in a case
with the bank and your siblings to settle your claim
interest in the land. Speculators will seek out one or two
siblings to see if they can buy them out, then they can
petition the courts for the full property to be sold.
Called a ``speculating interest'' in the land to cause land
loss. You get a minimal amount of the value of that land.
Arkansas' law has changed--the Uniform Partition of Heirs
Property Act allows an heir who is a co-owner to buy out
another who wants to sell their share of a property at the
market value of the property.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition to Arkansas; Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas numerous states have now adopted
or have introduced versions of the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property
Act (http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/partition%20of%20heirs%20
property/uphpa_final_10.pdf). Passage of the Fair Access to Farmers and
Ranchers provisions in the 2018 Farm have helped build support to enact
the law drafted by the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission (http://
www.uniformlawcommission.com/) to make it easier to divide property and
preserve family wealth as the owners multiply over generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse Possession is also used by white farmers, investors and
property owners to take land. They pay property taxes and
take ownership, even where there are not heir property
issues. For example, an African American woman rented her
land to a white farmer and as part of the rent he paid her
taxes for 5 years. One year he did not pay rent and told he
did not owe it because now he owned the land Strategies:
Get more protections in place for African-American
families. A lot of risk factors that can result in land
loss--need to address them comprehensively.
Key point: There is a systemic lack of access to information
and resources to resolve heir property issues--We see a
great deal of land that is idle, land that could be
productive but isn't. The legal risk varies from state to
state. In some states, someone can seize rights to a
property simply by paying delinquent taxes. The time in
which one is considered to have relinquished their rights
to their land varies by state. There was a provision in the
2014 Farm Bill to help get Black farmers' land back; but it
didn't go anywhere. We need new support for education on
wills and estate planning.
Heirs Property and the Ecological Costs of Discrimination
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project worked over the past
decade to engage Black farmers in NRCS programs. With Rural Coalition
and the Scholars of the America University Farm Bill practicum, the
researched the data and experiences of Black farmers in access USDA
programs. Their findings are summarized and published in the research
paper on the Ecological Costs of Discrimination.* \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
336701771_Ecological_costs_of_discrimination
_racism_red_cedar_and_resilience_in_farm_bill_conservation_policy_in_Okl
ahoma)
\3\ Fagundes, Tillman, et al., Ecological costs of discrimination:
racism, red cedar and resilience in farm bill conservation policy in
Oklahoma, October 2019, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (https:/
/www.researchgate.net/journal/Renewable-Agriculture-and-Food-Systems-
1742-1713) 35(4): 1-15, DOI: 10.1017/S1742170519000322 (https://
www.researchgate.net/deref/
http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1017%2FS1742170519000322).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasive species thrive in places facing climatic changes and put
farmers at further risk. In Oklahoma, eastern redcedar is spreading at
the rate of 800 acres a day. Without help for mitigation from USDA
especially for historically underserved farmers who farm on heirs
property, small cow and calf operations have seen their grazing land
taken over by redcedar, which competes with pastureland by consuming up
to 55,000 gallons of water per acre per year and puts the viability of
their operations at further risk. Other risks they have faced over the
past decade include severe cycles of floods, droughts, fires, freezes
and tornados. Farmers who were deemed ineligible for NRCS program, the
OBHRPI learned, were denied because they lacked the documentation to
secure farm and tract numbers to demonstrate their control of the land
on which they sought benefits.
The Fair Access for Farmers and Ranchers Act, drafted by Rep.
Fudge, and introduced in the Senate by Senators Doug Jones and Senator
Tim Scott, authorized the aforementioned the heirs property relending
fund. It also authorized the use of alternate methods of documentation
to allow access for farmers to NRCS and other programs to allow them to
care for land. For the first time in Federal law, it made some of the
methods consistent with the processes outlined in the Uniform Partition
of Heirs Property state passed law. The third provision, Section 12607
of the 2018 Farm Bill authorized Farmland Ownership Data Collection
that sought to identify the land tenure trends that may affect
generational transitions, and barriers to entry for beginning and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
The data and studies compiled under Section 12607 are critical
inform and guide all levels of agricultural policy making that concern
the critical dynamics of heirs' property and absentee land ownership in
farming communities. Appropriations of $3 million annually were
authorized. We urge this Committee to assure this important initiative
is full funded. This baseline study is essential to allow the Congress
to anticipate the impact of various kinds of climate interventions on
farm and forest land tenure especially for Black Farmers.
Heirs Property and Forest Land
Securing and building land tenure is also critical to protecting
the intergenerational transfer of land and wealth and building a
community with a healthy ecosystem and a tax base to sufficient to
support quality education, employment opportunities, and a strong
infrastructure. The following abstract of the paper ``Taking
Goldschmidt to the Woods: Timberland Ownership and Quality of Life in
Alabama'' \4\ summarizes the impact of the degree of highly
concentrated land ownership on children, families and the communities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ September 2020 Rural Sociology (https://www.researchgate.net/
journal/Rural-Sociology-0036-0112) 86(1) DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12344
(https://www.researchgate.net/deref/
http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%2Fruso.12344) Authors: Conner Bailey
(https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Conner-Bailey-
36320674), Abhimanyu Gopaul (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-
contributions/Abhimanyu-Gopaul-2179969094), Ryan Thomson (https://
www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan-Thomson), Auburn University (https://
www.researchgate.net/institution/Auburn-University); Andrew Gunnoe
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Gunnoe), Maryville College
(https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Maryville_College).
Abstract: We use a database of property tax records for 13.6
million acres representing every parcel of privately owned
timberland in 48 rural Alabama counties to test two hypotheses
inspired by Walter Goldschmidt relating land ownership and
quality of life. Our data show private ownership is highly
concentrated and 62 percent is absentee owned. We employed
Pearson correlations alongside Poisson and negative binomial
regression models to estimate influence of both concentrated
private ownership and absentee ownership of timberland. Our
findings support Goldschmidt-inspired hypotheses that
concentrated and absentee ownership of timberland exhibit a
significant adverse relationship with quality of life as
measured by educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, food
insecurity, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch at
public schools, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
participation, and population density. Low property taxes in
Alabama limit the ability of local governments to generate
revenue to support public education or meet other
infrastructural or service needs in rural areas. We call on
rural sociologists and kindred spirits to pay more attention to
the fundamental importance of land ownership which shapes the
foundations of power and inequality affecting rural life in
America and beyond.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/
344021201_Taking_Goldschmidt_to_the_Woods
_Timberland_Ownership_and_Quality_of_Life_in_Alabama.
We look forward to other opportunities sharing our proposals to
more fully full address the set of issues we have raised, including
with respect to climate. We further point to a critical need to assure
farmers have access to the qualified and trusted legal and technical
assistance necessary to protect their land.
In October 2019, the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers
Land Loss Prevention Project authored a Continuing Legal Education
(CLE) manuscript ``Assisting Heir Property Owners Facing Natural
Disasters: History and Overview of Heir Property Issues.'' We
participated in person as a panelist in the collaborative CLE webinar
to train NC Legal Aid volunteer attorneys on service to impacted heir
property owners. The webinar took place on October 23. According to
Legal Aid's coordinator, there were approximately 124 webinar
participants on that date and the course will continue to be available
for training purposes.
Through individual direct legal intervention, technical assistance,
outreach and policy innovation and implementation, the overall outlook
for North Carolina's disaster-affected families has been substantially
improved. The benefits include increased property retention, removal of
barriers to assistance programs, enhanced food access, heightened farm
business risk management, and family engagement in multi-generational
planning as a safeguard against inherent co-ownership vulnerabilities.
We project that the pandemic will continue to emphasize the need
for education on what defines sustainability and how environmental,
economic, health stressors are intertwined and cumulative. This
highlights the importance of collaborative work we have all done to
expand the framework of justice and increase the tools and resources
available to communities to take direct action to promote community
health. We see our engagement with Black and Brown-led coalitions and
initiatives advancing sustainable environments and community-controlled
food only deepening and expanding.
We will provide a letter to Chairman Scott and the Committee in
upcoming weeks that better summarizes our immediate recommendations for
action.
Conclusion
Today, Black farmers find themselves still seeking financial
compensation from years of discrimination by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). This financial compensation, along
with the American Rescue Plan, has been called ``unfair reparations,''
``another handout,'' or some other dehumanizing term by prominent and
influential elected officials and others. This continued systemic and
institutionalized racism is further evidence of the unrelenting
discrimination that Black farmers and their communities experience on a
daily basis. Furthermore, many Black farmers, their families and
communities continue to be on the brink of bankruptcy, foreclosure, and
homelessness. The USDA must act now to implement the American Rescue
Plan and related initiatives to empower Black farmers and their
communities. The American Rescue Plan and related initiatives can only
be successful if the USDA pays off Black farmers' USDA farm loan debts,
creates an inclusive and equitable implementation process for the $1B
authorized by Section 1006, and prioritizes policies that help Black
farmers and their communities to hold onto their land and protect it
from further discriminatory practices.
Introduction to the Appendix
We have affixed this appendix to provide this Committee with a
record of some of the research, documentation, analysis and solutions
the Black, Indigenous and other People of Color farmers and ranchers we
serve have recommended over the years. These reflected repeated calls
to our elected leaders to hold our U.S. Department of Agriculture
accountable for these continuing abuses.
And we have provided this Committee with many policy
recommendations, some of which have been adopted, some adopted but not
yet implemented, and others ready to be adapted for the current day. We
are not the only such groups have done so. We feel it is important for
this Committee to have a record of the work of this important work at a
time when the will to make these changes is greater than we have seen
before.
Summary of Appendices
1. Congressional Letters and Testimony
Rural Coalition, et al., Letter to the Leadership of the U.S. House
of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to Support Emergency Relief for
Farmers and Ranchers of Color, March 3, 2021.
Quinton R. Robinson, Esq., Policy Brief on the Need for Emergency
Relief for Farmers of Color, Rural Coalition, March 4, 2021.
Statement of John Zippert on behalf of the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives and Rural Coalition, to the Subcommittee on Departmental
Operations, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., September 25, 2002.
Statement of John Zippert on behalf of the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives and Rural Coalition to the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Energy, Research and Credit, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C., March 27, 2007.
2. Research Findings and Policy Recommendations
A Time to Change: A Report by the Assessment Conversations Team
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rJEsuSOef1_3jOhA3HCDEkCIHJ_cDPr/
view), Sept. 22, 2010 (link only to a comprehensive 150-page report of
a multi-year assessment of USDA Prog[r]ams andservices with CBO leaders
and USDA Agency Staff).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the report entitled, A Time to Change: A Report by
the Assessment Conversations Team, was not included as a part of the
Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural for the March 25, 2021 hearing
submission's appendices. It is retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Green, PhD, ``Summary Results from The Financial Training
Project Assessment Survey: A Report to the Rural Coalition,'' Institute
for Community-Based Research, Division of Social Sciences/Center for
Community and Economic Development, Delta State University, February
2006.
John J. Green, Lorette Picciano, Heather Fenney, et al., ``The
Insurance Needs of Traditionally-Underserved Farmers: Framework for a
Multi-Community Assessment,'' presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, Montreal, Canada, July 2003.
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, with Rural Coalition,
et al.,\1\ ``The 100 Summit Report: Addressing the Needs and Concerns
of the Underserved Minority Family Farming Community,'' 2017.
3. Issues Related to Farm Credit and Guaranteed Loans
Rural Coalition Letter to the [Government Accountability] Office
(GAO) regarding Sec. 5416. GAO Report on Credit Service to Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2021.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Editor's note: the letter is dated March 3, 2019. It has been
published herein as received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Credit Administration response to a farmer following a request
for assistance with a complaint, December 18, 2014.
Rural Coalition Letter to the Farm Credit Administration requesting
information on assuring protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, December 19, 2014; farmer name redacted.
Letter from FSA Administrator Val Dolcini in response to our letter
related to same farmer case, January 13, 2015, which includes the quote
``FSA will be carefully reviewing the action taken by Farm Credit in
this case and, if irregularities are identified, any loss claims will
be adjusted accordingly. Aside from evaluating Farm Credit's adherence
to published regulations for the administration of a guaranteed loan,
FSA has no authority to oversee nor provide direction to the Farm
Credit System. If Mr. (redacted) believes Farm Credit has acted
improperly, he should contact the Office of Congressional and Public
Affairs, Farm Credit Administration, in McLean, Virginia, which is the
oversight organization for the Farm Credit banks.'' ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Editor's note: the letter was not included as part of the
appendices of the Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural for the March 25,
2021 hearing submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Letters and Testimony
[1] Rural Coalition, et al., Letter to the Leadership of the U.S.
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to Support Emergency
Relief for Farmers and Ranchers of Color, March 3, 2021.
[2] Quinton R. Robinson, Esq., Policy Brief on the Need for
Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color, Rural Coalition, March 4, 2021.
[3] Statement of John Zippert on behalf of the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives and Rural Coalition to the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Energy, Research and Credit, Committee on Agriculture,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 27, 2007.
[4] Statement of John Zippert on behalf of the Federation of
Southern Cooperatives and Rural Coalition, to the Subcommittee on
Departmental Operations, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C., September 25, 2002.****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Editor's note: the order of the listing Congressional Letters
and Testimony has been changed to reflect the order of the actual Rural
Coalition/Coalicion Rural appendices for the March 25, 2021 hearing
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Congressional Letters and Testimony 1]
March 3, 2021
Hon. Charles Schumer, Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Support Emergency Relief for Farmers and Ranchers of Color
Dear Leaders Schumer and McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader
McCarthy:
We, the 181 undersigned organizations are committed to improving
the financial and rural development interests of this nation's Black,
Indigenous, Hispanic and People of Color farmers and ranchers. We
endorse and urge you to support the Emergency Relief for Farmers of
Color Act introduced by Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA),
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), and Senate
Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). We further urge you to
assure the emergency relief provisions drawn from this Act as included
by House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) to the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2021, are included
in the final COVID Emergency Budget Reconciliation Package.
Our expressions of support for these family farmer provisions are
rooted in fairness and equity. American agriculture has a long history
of providing various forms of family farm debt and other emergency
relief. Yet the troubled history of farm loan discrimination for Black,
Indigenous, Hispanic, and farmers of color, coupled with their
exclusion from the many farm programs other producers depend upon to
survive and thrive, weakens these farm families, making it impossible
to transfer farmland wealth from generation to generation.
For example, the $14.4 billion in trade adjustment assistance
provided in 2019 through the Market Facilitation Program i
did not address the needs of the small farm specialty crop and
livestock sectors of the market where their production is concentrated.
The emergency COVID relief provided through the Coronavirus Food
Assistance Program, the Farmers to Family Food Box Program, and the
Small Business loan programs have provided only minimal assistance to
farmers of color. Several BIPOC-led farmers groups who did participate
successfully in early rounds of the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program were not included in subsequent rounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ GAO Report--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm
Service Agency (FSA) distributed about $14.4 billion in 2019 Market
Facilitation Program (MFP) payments to farming operations in all 50
states and Puerto Rico . . . to 643,965 farming operations. MFP
payments for 2019 also varied by type of commodity. Three types of
commodities were eligible for 2019 MFP payments: (1) nonspecialty crops
(including grains and oilseeds, such as corn and soybeans); (2)
specialty crops (including nuts and fruits, such as pecans and
cranberries); and (3) dairy and hogs. Less than ten percent went to
farming operations that produced specialty crops or dairy and hogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, these producers have worked diligently throughout
the pandemic to increase production in uncertain markets and to do all
they can with little to no government support to meet the urgent food
needs of their communities.
Over 200 years of beneficial treatment positions the sectors of
farmers, who have benefited most from historic and recent investments
in Federal farm programs, with more assets under their control, more
land base to leverage, and more market stability to capitalize on and
mitigate the impacts of economic crises the likes of which we are
currently experiencing. Farmers of color were already leveraged to the
hilt prior to the crisis because their operations haven't had the same
multigenerational investments. The carefully crafted support from
Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act provisions provides the
urgently needed debt forgiveness and technical assistance necessary to
shore up this sector of producers who do not enjoy extensive Federal
support and an asset base to leverage. The legislation provides:
$4 billion in direct relief payments to help farmers of
color pay off outstanding USDA farm loan debts and related
taxes, and help them respond to the economic impacts of the
pandemic, and
Another $1 billion fund to root out systemic racism by
expanding the capacity of USDA to provide technical and legal
assistance to agricultural communities of color and to fund
under-resourced programs that will shape the future for farmers
and communities of color, including:
Grants and loans to improve land access and address
heirs' property issues;
Support for one or more legal centers focused on
agricultural legal issues of farmers of color (including
succession issues made more urgent when many families have
lost members to a pandemic that has claimed over half a
million lives);
Pilot projects focusing on land acquisition, financial
planning, technical assistance, and credit;
A racial equity commission and related activities to
address systemic racism across USDA;
Support for research, education, and extension at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 1994
Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic-Serving and other
institutions of higher education that historically serve
communities of color;
Scholarships at 1890's land-grant universities and for
indigenous students attending land-grant institutions;