U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–110 PDF 2004

STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

PIGFORD V. GLICKMAN SETTLEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Serial No. 108

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

E. STEWART JEFFRIES, Counsel 

HILARY FUNK, Counsel 

MINDY BARRY, Full Committee Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ............................ 1

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia ............................................................................................................. 3

The Honorable Spencer Bachus, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Alabama ............................................................................................................ 5

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina ................................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES 

Mr. Phillip J. Haynie, II, Haynie Farms, LLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Ms. Randi Ilyse Roth, Monitor, Pigford v. Glickman

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

Mr. Michael K. Lewis, Adjudicator, Pigford v. Glickman

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 195

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 198

Mr. Alexander Pires, Class Counsel, Pigford v. Glickman

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 199

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of Chairman Chabot ............................................................. 223

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott ........................................ 224

Prepared Statement of Sanford Bishop ................................................................. 225

Attachments to hearing testimony submitted by witness Randi Ilyse Roth ...... 226

Prepared statement with attachments from Arianne Callender ......................... 407

Prepared statement of Thomas Burrell ................................................................. 1574

Letter from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives submitted by Chairman 

Chabot ................................................................................................................... 1589

Supplemental statement of witness Michael K. Lewis ......................................... 1594

Prepared statement of Lawrence Lucas ................................................................. 1656

Supplemental testimony from witness Alexander Pires ....................................... 1662

(1)

STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

PIGFORD V. GLICKMAN SETTLEMENT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:05 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot (Chair of 

the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. This is the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. I’m Steve Chabot, the 

Chairman of the Committee. I welcome everyone here this afternoon and I’d like to thank everyone for being here today for this 

very important hearing. 

However, I feel that it’s necessary to qualify that statement by 

saying that it’s unfortunate that we even have to be here because 

time after time it appears that the wrong choices have been made 

by those in positions of authority. I trust that today’s hearing will 

enable this Subcommittee to examine those issues that are of utmost importance and will enable us to make a substantive and series of substantive recommendations to remedy the injustices that 

have occurred. 

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a few people: 

Arianne Callender of the Environmental Working Group; Mr. John 

Boyd, with the National Black Farmers Association; Mr. Thomas 

Burrell, with the National Black Farmers and Agriculturists Association; and Shirley Sherrod, with the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, for taking the time to provide this Committee with information. Through these individuals and others, it has come to 

this Subcommittee’s attention that a second hearing is necessary in 

order to take additional testimony from additional witnesses, and 

some of the people that I just mentioned may very well be witnesses at the next hearing. I’ve directed my staff to investigate the 

scheduling of a second hearing and we will work with folks to make 

sure that that’s at as convenient a time as possible. 

When slavery was ended in the United States, our Government 

made a promise, a restitution of sorts, to the former slaves that 

they would be given 40 acres and a mule. While we can debate 

whether this allotment was intended to compensate the freed 

slaves for their involuntary service, what is clear is that this promise was intended to help freed slaves be independent economically 

and psychologically as holders of private property. 

2

What also is clear is that the very Government that made this 

promise through the People’s Agency established back in 1862 

under President Abraham Lincoln, the Government has sabotaged 

it by creating conditions that make sovereign and economically viable farm ownership extremely difficult. 

This is the backdrop against which we will be examining the 

issues before us today. We are here to consider the administration 

of the 1999 Consent Decree, which resulted from the civil rights 

case of Pigford v. Glickman. 

The Consent Decree was developed to provide some monetary 

restitution to black farmers who were victims of racial discrimination carried out by the United States Department of Agriculture, 

the very institution designated to assist them, supposed to be done 

in a swift and timely manner. 

Rather than help black farmers, this agency has been instrumental in causing their decline. Since the early 1900’s the number 

of black farmers has decreased from nearly one million to fewer 

than 18,000. During this time, when black farmers tried to seek 

justice by filing discrimination complaints with the USDA, the 

United States Department of Agriculture, their claims were either 

ignored or dismissed, most without an investigation. 

Ultimately, several of these black farmers, all whose claims of racial discrimination had been disregarded by the USDA, filed a class 

action suit against that agency. After extensive negotiations a settlement was reached that established a process to have all the discrimination claims heard in a timely manner. Yet, in an ironic 

twist the process that was created to provide a forum for those 

whose claims had been shut out has itself shut out nearly twothirds of all who wanted to have their discrimination claims heard. 

Whether or not each of these claimants would have prevailed on 

the merits is not the issue before us today. The process should have 

at least allowed them the opportunity to be heard. We cannot in 

good conscience allow a settlement that leaves out more potential 

claimants than it allows in to go unexamined or remain unsolved. 

All the parties involved are responsible for developing a solution, 

whether it be modifying the current Consent Decree, creating a 

subsequent Consent Decree, or some other process, to stop the destructive cycle from reoccurring. The first step in this process 

should be to provide the nearly 65,000 people who were denied 

entry into the process the opportunity to at least be heard. We will 

never be able to put the racially discriminatory practices that have 

occurred and continue to occur within the USDA behind us until 

every one of these individuals has at least had the opportunity to 

be heard. 

This is just one of the many problems with the Consent Decree 

that my colleagues and I hear about nearly every day. It is my sincerest hope that this hearing will help us all get a better understanding of what precisely the problems are, what potential solutions there may be, and what we can do to ensure that the Government never finds itself in a similar situation again. Too much has 

been lost and too much is at stake for black farmers to just accept 

the solution in 1999 that has failed more people than it has helped. 

3

And that is my opening statement. And I would now yield to the 

gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Member of this Committee, Mr. Conyers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Steve Chabot. We appreciate your remarks, and I thank my colleague Bobby Scott, the 

Ranking Subcommittee Member, for allowing me to just make a 

brief statement because I am asking to be excused to go to the 

floor. I have to manage a bill. 

But John Boyd of Virginia came to me a number of years ago 

now about this problem that we have been in, and since April 14, 

1999, where we declared victory with black farmers, something incredible has happened. And by the way, I thank you for your opening statement, Chairman Chabot, because you are probably ready 

now to go on the reparations bill that’s been languishing before this 

Committee for many years. Your analysis of the plight of African 

American farmers is right on. But here is the problem. We have 90 

percent of the claims being denied and 65,000 people, farmers, 

turned away. 

Now, look, folks. That isn’t justice. Something is wrong. I want 

to thank Sister Roth for all that she’s done in her capacity over the 

years as the monitor. But I really want to tell you that the plight 

of the black farmer is just as bad as it was in 1910 when black 

farmers owned almost 16 million acres of land, when today it is 

only a couple of million at best. The farmers are disappearing and 

so I want to make a direct appeal to Randi Roth—to Michael 

Lewis, the adjudicator. Brother Lewis, please open up this process 

so these 65,000 farmers can have their day of justice occur. There’s 

a lot that you could do in the interpretation of this court order. I 

know that and you know that. Please, Al Pires, the class counsel, 

please join with us and try to get this Consent Decree amended or 

we are going—this will go down in history as one of the greatest 

governmental injustices that has ever occurred. 

And I am here—I have been in this thing from the beginning. 

And I am going to stay with this Committee, the Chairman and 

Bobby Scott and Mel Watt, until the end. And I thank you so very 

much. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his statement. I would now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Scott from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this 

opportunity to thank you, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner, the Agriculture Committee Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, for your agreement to develop this hearing for the open bipartisan and productive manner in which you and your staffs have 

proceeded to do so. I must also acknowledge the work and dedication in developing this hearing by Judiciary Committee Ranking 

Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, 

and their staffs working on this as well. 

There are several other Members and their staffs who have contributed to this effort, including the gentleman from North Carolina, Mel Watt, Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, Ed Towns from 

New York, G.K. Butterfield from North Carolina, Sanford Bishop 

from Georgia, and Joe Baca from California. Of course this hearing 

would not have been possible without the hard work and determination of all of the representatives and advocates of black farmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\092804\96110.000 HJUD1 PsN: 96110
4

ers too numerous to list who have worked with us in developing the 

hearing over the last year. This has truly been a collaborative effort of all of those that I have mentioned and more. 

Now, this hearing is just about the Pigford settlement. There are 

many other issues and problems with USDA, and there are a number of efforts under way to address those problems. Among those 

are lawsuits and complaints by Hispanic women and Native American farmers. There is also a new lawsuit pending by black farmers 

alleging continuing discrimination since the period covered by the 

Pigford case as well as continuing allegations and complaints of 

discrimination by USDA employees. 

I believe that all of these civil rights issues warrant oversight by 

the Judiciary Committee, and I appreciate you mentioning that 

they will be the focus of subsequent hearings. Everyone who needs 

to testify today obviously could not be accommodated in one hearing, and so I thank you for committing to the subsequent hearings. 

We have had a lot of people, like Tom Burrell and attorney James 

Myart, John Boyd from Virginia, Representative Henry Brooks 

from Tennessee, who have worked on this, and we obviously 

couldn’t get everybody in this one hearing. 

The U.S. farm services programs date back to 1862. Through 

their history the programs have been laden with the pall of racial 

discrimination in blatant as well as subtle ways. The Federal Government has stepped up its loan and technical assistance programs 

to farmers in recognition of the growing capital and other needs of 

farmers to stay viable, but black farmers have been largely left out 

due to discrimination and neglect. 

In the early 1900’s there were as many as a million black owned 

farms with about 16 million acres. Now there are an estimated 

18,000 such farms, less than 3 million acres. Black farmers complained but no systemic action was taken to remedy the situation. 

And to add insult to injury, in 1983 the Civil Rights Office in 

USDA was closed down. Many complained about rampant discriminatory practices but others did not even bother, understandably, 

expecting that nothing would be done to address their complaints. 

The Judiciary Committee looked into this issue in 1984 through 

a hearing held in this subject Committee which exposed racially 

discriminatory practices then in existence in USDA’s loan and assistance programs and its nonexistent civil rights complaints process. Unfortunately, no substantial remedial effort was undertaken 

by either the Administration or by Congress until Secretary Glickman, in response to the growing and persistent complaints of black 

farmers and the disarray in complaint processing, ordered a moratorium on farm foreclosures and a series of reforms while pending 

complaint investigations. Yet it took a lawsuit by the black farmers 

in 1997 to bring about meaningful attention to the problem. 

The original estimates of the backlog of pending complaints was 

a few hundred. Over a thousand were discovered. Then there were 

estimates of about 2,000 farmers who may have suffered discrimination by USDA. By the time the Consent Decree was entered, the 

estimates had risen to 4-5,000. Over 22,000 filed claims within the 

initial deadline. 

However, as the deadline expired, the court found the claims 

were still coming in. In fact, they were coming in so fast that the 

5

court extended the deadline and directed the adjudicator to determine those entitled to be included due to extraordinary circumstances out of their control. To everyone’s astonishment, almost 

66,000 claimants filed for consideration during the extension. 

Most of them have been considered by the adjudicator and, curiously, only about 3 percent have been allowed in. Moreover, another 7,800 filed beyond the extended deadline. That adds up to almost 96,000 claimants. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the adequacy of the 

settlement process that leaves 70 percent of its claimants without 

a determination on the merits of their claim. I don’t know whether 

the problem is the sufficiency of the original notice process or in 

the criteria applied to filers during the extended period, but I am 

not willing to accept that nearly 66,000 individuals who believe 

they have legitimate claims of racial discrimination knowingly ignored notice of the initial filing deadline and chose to submit their 

claims after the deadline for no good reason. I don’t know what 

percentage of the claimants can show entitlement to relief, but it 

is certain that some can. As long as 70 percent of those who believe 

that they are entitled to recover under the settlement are prevented from having a determination on the merits of their claim, 

I don’t see how we can move forward with transforming the image 

and effectiveness of USDA in serving minority customers fully. If 

this situation is allowed to stand, black farmers will not only have 

been victimized by the original discriminatory practices at USDA, 

but by the remedy process as well. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses for any insights that they may provide regarding my questions and concerns about the unfortunate state of affairs of the 

Pigford settlement, and I thank you and look forward to working 

with you as we solve these problems. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank you very much for your opening statement. 

Are there any other panel Members that wish to make an opening 

statement? 

Mr. Bachus, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

read really a part of what the court said in the Pigford case because I think it is at least what the court thought is the situation. 

I think it is a pretty good summary. 

The court, and I am quoting from the case itself, quote, the department itself, talking about the Department of Agriculture, has 

recognized that there has always been a disconnect between what 

President Lincoln envisioned as the people’s department serving all 

the people and the widespread belief that the department is, I 

quote, the last plantation, end quote, A department perceived as 

playing a key role in what some see as a conspiracy to force minority and disadvantaged farmers off their land through discriminatory loan practices. 

In explaining this point, and noting the failure, what they say, 

of the USDA to address the problem of discrimination through its 

Civil Rights Complaint Project, the court goes on to say this: For 

decades, despite its promise that no person in the United States 

shall on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded 

from participation and be denied the benefits of or be otherwise 

6

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture, the department and the county commissioners discriminated against African American farmers when they denied, delayed 

or otherwise frustrated their applications for farm loans and other 

credit and benefit programs. Further compounding the problem, in 

1983 the department disbanded its Office of Civil Rights and 

stopped responding to claims of discrimination. These events were 

the culmination of a string of broken promises that has been made 

to African American farmers for well over a century. 

And I will just close by saying there is evidence, and I think one 

reason for this hearing today is that the Consent Decree may not 

be serving its intended purpose. And that’s I think a very—it’s obviously a very serious charge that the court leveled against the department. And it’s certainly something that merits this hearing 

today to see where we are since the court said that. 

So I yield back the balance of my time, but I thank the panel for 

being here on this most important occasion. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t intend to take 5 

minutes, although sometimes I don’t know how much time I’m 

going to take. But I certainly don’t start this statement with the 

intention of taking 5 minutes because I don’t want the folks in the 

audience to get the impression that we have these hearings to listen to ourselves rather than to listen to the people who came to testify at the hearing. But I did want to take the opportunity to thank 

Mr. Scott for his leadership in pulling together the concept of and 

making the case for the necessity of a hearing such as this, and I 

want to thank the Chairman for agreeing to have the hearing because we know the power of the Chair in this body. You can’t get 

a hearing without having a Chair who’s willing to afford you a 

hearing unless you go out and do your own renegade hearing, 

which we have had to do on occasion and have done on this issue 

on a couple of occasions. So it’s great to have a hearing inside the 

formal process that has a court reporter that produces a record and 

documents what is being said. 

I actually have the most urban congressional district that North 

Carolina has ever had throughout its history and consequently 

don’t have many farmers in my congressional district. Most of the 

farmers in North Carolina happen to be in eastern North Carolina 

out in G.K. Butterfield’s district, Walter Jones’ district, and out in 

eastern North Carolina. But there is not a single issue that I hear 

more about and more complaints about secondhand, firsthand, directly with people than the plight of black farmers. And I know, because my uncles when I was growing up were farmers, how difficult it is to be a farmer. Even when you don’t have the odds 

stacked against you, even when you don’t have the Department of 

Agriculture and the local officials discriminating against you, it is 

extremely difficult to be a farmer, even more difficult to be an African American farmer. And so I think we need to do whatever is 

necessary and I hope that this hearing can give us a basis for trying to figure out what can be done to address the concerns, the 

complaints that I am hearing even in my more urban congressional 

7

district, and that Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are 

hearing over and over and over again throughout America about 

exclusion of people who should be in the class, who should have 

been in the class—maybe that’s a better way to put it—and whether there is some effective way to provide compensation that acknowledges the discrimination that they have endured over a number of years and gets us to a point where we can start a new day 

and move forward and work on issues that are confronting farmers 

outside the process of discrimination and mistreatment. 

So I appreciate the fact that this hearing is being held, and since 

I am the last person here that might make an opening statement 

before the witnesses, I will yield back quickly before somebody else 

comes in and delays us further. With that, I will yield back to the 

Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Watt. Appreciate your 

opening statement. 

I’d first like to introduce the witness panel here if there is no 

other opening statements to be made, and we want to thank all the 

witnesses for being here this afternoon and participating in this 

very important hearing. 

The first witness I would like to introduce is Phillip Haynie, II. 

Mr. Haynie is a farmer in the Commonwealth of Virginia who has 

been involved in farming his entire life. Mr. Haynie has experienced discrimination in his dealings with the USDA. He was instrumental in bringing about the class action that led to the 

Pigford settlement. We welcome you here this afternoon, Mr. 

Haynie. 

The next witness is Randi Ilyse Roth, the court appointed monitor in the Pigford case since March 2000. Prior to serving as the 

monitor, she worked as a legal aid lawyer for 16 years, and since 

1986 she worked for the Farmers Legal Action Group, where she 

represented African American farmers and organizations, and we 

welcome you here this afternoon, Ms. Roth. 

The third witness is Michael K. Lewis, the court appointed arbitrator. Mr. Lewis was involved in the negotiations that led to the 

Consent Decree, based on his many years of experience in civil 

rights dispute mediation, and we thank you for being here, Mr. 

Lewis. 

And our final witness is Alexander Pires. He was the lead class 

counsel representing the black farmer plaintiffs in the Pigford suit. 

Mr. Pires has made a career of practicing agriculture law and has 

been involved in the Pigford suit from its inception. 

We want to thank all four of the witnesses for being here this 

afternoon, and it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in 

all the witnesses, to administer the oath to the witnesses before us. 

So if you all would please stand and raise your right hand. 

[witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CHABOT. We have a lighting system here which you might 

have noticed, the two boxes on the desk here, and the way it works 

is each of you will have 5 minutes to testify. And it starts out 

green. When it goes to yellow that will let you know that you have 

1 minute to wrap up. And when the red light comes on your 5 minutes are up, and if you could conclude close to that we would appreciate it. And we always give a little leeway, if you need to wrap 

8

up. But to the extent you are able to stay within the 5 minutes we 

would appreciate. Then each of the panel Members will have 5 

minutes to ask questions of any of the witnesses. So are the lights 

all ready to go here? 

Okay, Mr. Haynie, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. HAYNIE, II, HAYNIE FARMS, LLC 

Mr. HAYNIE. Good afternoon. My name is Phillip J. Haynie, II. 

First of all, on behalf of all the black farmers in the United States 

of America, I would like to take this opportunity to thank this 

Committee for holding this hearing. 

Mr. CHABOT. Could you pull the mike just a little closer? We’ve 

got a lot of folks, want to make sure everybody can hear you. You 

can even grab the whole box there and pull it a little closer, and 

we’ll add a few seconds at the end for you. 

Mr. HAYNIE. Okay, thank you. 

I’m a fourth generation farmer from Heathsville, Virginia. On 

September the 14 in 1867 my great grandfather, the Reverend Robert Haynie, purchased 60 acres of land in Heathsville, Virginia. 

This was the first purchase of land by a former slave in Northumberland County. I’m about to lose a part of this land that I inherited due to the discriminatory practices of the USDA. For me 

and my family, spanning five generations, farming is not a job. It 

is a way of life. 

The Pigford v. Glickman settlement was supposed to put an end 

to discrimination to black farmers and compensate black farmers 

for years of discrimination. This settlement has failed black farmers in the following ways: 

Financial compensation. According to a recent Environmental 

Working Group report, that approximately 65,000 farmers did not 

get a fair hearing in their cases. Black farmers were required to 

go out and find similarly situated white farmers in order to determine discrimination in their cases. 

I have with me today Reverend Nathaniel Jones from Gloucester, 

Virginia. He’s the oldest black farmer in the United States. On October the 12 he will be 99 years old. How is a 99-year-old man 

going to go out and find similarly situated farmers when everybody 

that farmed with him is already dead? And he does not have access 

to USDA records. 

The second, the settlement failed to end discrimination against 

black farmers by USDA employees. 

The settlement failed to prevent the loss of black land. 

The settlement has failed to provide educational and financial 

opportunities to help young African Americans to engage in farming. 

The settlement has failed to end foreclosures on black farmers 

and their land. 

The settlement has failed to provide the injunctive relief that is 

outlined in the settlement. 

The settlement has failed to provide black farmers with equal 

and fair access to land in USDA inventory. 

The Government has systematically and purposefully low-balled 

damage estimates in Track B. They have used a model based on 

averages, even when the individual Track B farmer’s operation was 

9

larger and more efficient than average. The USDA collects and 

analyzes a lot of good data at taxpayers’ expense, but then conveniently ignores that information when estimating Track B farmers’ damage. In short, to the extent that any farmer in Track B has an 

operation that was larger than average for that region and county, 

the USDA underestimated the damage and did so purposely, and 

this is statistically indefensible. Then to add in injury to insult, the 

USDA’s damage model took a downward adjustment in the damage 

estimate if a farmer’s crop productivity level was higher than the 

average for the county, again driving the estimates back to the average even when the farmer showed better than average yields and 

practice. 

Just another example of how the Justice Department and the 

USDA together have twisted what was supposed to be a good faith 

settlement for the class into an opportunity to fight individual 

farmers one by one. Those farmers now have to fight the Government without the benefit of shared expense for the class for things 

like counsel and experts. They have to fight the Government without the benefit of shared learning for the class. They have to fight 

the Government without benefit of the normal discovery procedures. And they have to fight the Government without the benefit 

of an open and transparent process. 

One of the trade-offs was supposed to be a fast process. Instead 

the process is taking years for Track A farmers. The monitor has 

until 2007 to complete the reviews of the petition. Of course because the Government does not have to pay interest on damage, 

the Government wins again if it understaffs the settlement process 

and drags it out. 

To sum it up, I don’t know how anyone can look at the reality 

of the settlement and call it a good faith settlement. It is clear that 

the Government is spending huge sums in fighting these cases. It 

is clear that the damage models the USDA used in Track B cases 

is not designed to produce accurate estimates for farmers damage. 

It is designed to underestimate them. It is clear that the Track A 

process is moving at a snail’s pace. This is not a settlement. This 

is just a continuation of the USDA’s war against black farmers, 

having disarmed them by false promises of a good faith settlement. 

USDA has used the Office of Inspector General to intimidate and 

reprise against farmers, especially large black farmers who have 

filed civil rights complaints against USDA. 

Systemic discrimination at the United States Department of Agriculture goes far beyond black farmers. They include Hispanics, 

Native American farmers, Asian farmers, women farmers, disabled 

and other socially disadvantaged farmers. USDA even discriminates against its own employees. 

The Conference of Black Farmers organization is in support of 

legislation to correct the shortfalls of the Pigford v. Glickman settlement in ending discrimination at USDA. 

In closing, I pray that while the sons, daughters and the grandchildren of black farmers spill their blood and lose their lives in 

Iraq for the cause of democracy that we cannot, and we must not 

allow democracy to fail their parents and grandparents. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haynie follows:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. HAYNIE, II


Haynie1.eps
11


Haynie2.eps
12


Haynie3.eps
13


Haynie4.eps
14


Haynie5.eps
15


Haynie6.eps
16

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Haynie. Ms. Roth, you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RANDI ILYSE ROTH, MONITOR,

PIGFORD V. GLICKMAN

Ms. ROTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. Again, I am the independent court appointed monitor 

in Pigford and I have served in that capacity for 41⁄2 years 

since——

Mr. CHABOT. Could you pull the mike up. They can’t—it’s hard 

to hear. 

Ms. ROTH. Okay. How’s that? 

Mr. CHABOT. That’s great. If I could ask all the witnesses when 

they testify—it’s very—you think they’d pick them up, we’d have 

better mikes around this place. But your tax dollars at work. Go 

ahead. 

Ms. ROTH. Thank you very much. Is this working now? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, you sound very good now. We’ll start the clock 

over here for you. 

Ms. ROTH. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Scott has just reminded me it was probably a 

low bid, so——

Ms. ROTH. I have served as the independent court appointed 

monitor in Pigford since March of 2000. Pigford represents an important chapter in civil rights history, and it’s important that Congress, the press and the public come to an accurate understanding 

of what Pigford did and did not accomplish. Some of the recent 

press is confusing. 

Some criticisms assert that the parties are failing to live up to 

the Consent Decree. Others assert that the parties are living up to 

the Consent Decree, but the Consent Decree just wasn’t good 

enough to meet African American farmers needs. It’s critical to arrive at a realistic assessment of the situation. 

My testimony will provide some background about the case, and 

then will primarily address the question of whether the terms of 

the Consent Decree itself are being honored. I would like to explain 

my role in the case. 

The court’s order of reference in Pigford makes the monitor an 

agent and officer of the court. Because my role is quasi-judicial, 

topics about which I can testify are limited. In particular, I cannot 

testify regarding any matter that’s pending before the court. 

Paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree gives the Pigford monitor 

four jobs. The first is reporting. I have to report to the court about 

the good faith implementation of the decree. I included my most recent report as Appendix V to this testimony. 

My second job is to attempt to resolve problems that class members are having about the Consent Decree. There are more than 

22,000 claimants in the class and they raise many concerns. The 

most significant of these concerns are described in my reports. Historically, they have focused on debt relief, injunctive relief, tax relief and payment status. 

My third job is to issue petition decisions. In approximately 5,400 

cases claimants and/or the Government have petitioned to the monVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\092804\96110.000 HJUD1 PsN: 96110
17

itor for review of decisions issued by the adjudicator, arbitrator or 

facilitator. I issue monitor decisions in response to these petitions. 

My fourth job is to staff a toll free line for class members and 

the public. 

Next I will highlight some key aspects of implementation and explain what resources I have provided to the Committee to help explain them, following the outline of the written testimony. 

First, how does the Consent Decree process work? The Consent 

Decree sets up a process through which each of the approximately 

22,000 claimants is given a chance to prove to a neutral third party 

that he or she experienced discrimination. Both sides, the claimant 

and the Government, are allowed to submit information about the 

claim. Claimants are given the choice of proving discrimination 

through Track A or Track B. And I have put a table in the written 

testimony that highlights the differences between the tracks. 

Second is the late claims process. But I am going to skip that in 

my own testimony because I’m aware that Michael Lewis is going 

to be explaining that in his. 

Third, what is the success rate? About 61 percent of all claimants, people who are eligible to file claims, prevailed in their initial 

adjudications. So far, the unsuccessful claimants who filed petitions 

are prevailing in the petition process at a rate of about 50 percent. 

If one projected solely based on historical percentages, one would 

conclude that once the petitions process and reexamination process 

are over, close to 70 percent of the claimants will have prevailed 

on their claims. 

Fourth, how much has been paid out? To date, about $831 million worth of relief has been distributed to more than 13,500 class 

members in this case, and in the written testimony I provided a 

table that shows the categories of the relief. 

Fifth, what have been the results in the various processes? As 

Appendices I through III to my testimony, I have provided charts 

that detail the results in each of the processes. Chart 1 is about 

the claims process. Chart 2 is about the late claims process. And 

Chart 3 shows the results for the 2,000 or so people who have been 

allowed into the case through the late claims process. 

Next, I would like to address the key question of whether the 

terms of the Consent Decree have been honored. This question simply asks whether the parties and the neutrals have done and are 

doing the things that they agreed to do under the Consent Decree. 

The answer is yes. Claims are being processed, prevailing claimants are being paid. Debt relief is being awarded and injunctive relief rights are being honored. As I have detailed in my court reports, where problems or administrative snags have arisen in individual claimants’ situations the parties have worked in good faith 

to get the problem solved. 

Finally, I understand that this Committee intends to turn its attention to next steps. The results of lawsuits are limited by the nature of the claims listed in the complaint, the parties’ desires about 

how to resolve those claims, and by the court’s ability to fashion 

relief. Congress is not bound by these limitations. I understand 

that several congressional Committees are now interested in figuring out the right next steps for legislation to benefit African 

American farmers. Perhaps the lessons learned in this case and our 

18

testimony here today can contribute to a successful outcome in 

those new efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roth follows:]


roth1.eps
19


roth2.eps
20


roth3.eps
21


roth4.eps
22


roth5.eps
23


roth6.eps
24


roth7.eps
25


roth8.eps
26


roth9.eps
27


roth10.eps
28


roth11.eps
29


roth12.eps
30


roth13.eps
31


roth14.eps
32


roth15.eps
33


roth16.eps
34


roth17.eps
35


roth18.eps
36


roth19.eps
37


roth20.eps
38


roth21.eps
39


roth22.eps
40


roth23.eps
41


roth24.eps
42


roth25.eps
43


roth26.eps
44


roth27.eps
45


roth28.eps
46


roth29.eps
47


roth30.eps
48


roth31.eps
49


roth32.eps
50


roth33.eps
51


roth34.eps
52


roth35.eps
53


roth36.eps
54


roth37.eps
55


roth38.eps
56


roth39.eps
57


roth40.eps
58


roth41.eps
59


roth42.eps
60


roth43.eps
61


roth44.eps
62


roth45.eps
63


roth46.eps
64


roth47.eps
65


roth48.eps
66


roth49.eps
67


roth50.eps
68


roth0051.eps
69


roth0052.eps
70


roth0053.eps
71


roth0054.eps
72


roth0055.eps
73


roth0056.eps
74


roth0057.eps
75


roth0058.eps
76


roth0059.eps
77


roth0060.eps
78


roth0061.eps
79


roth0062.eps
80


roth0063.eps
81


roth0064.eps
82


roth0065.eps
83


roth0066.eps
84


roth0067.eps
85


roth0068.eps
86


roth0069.eps
87


roth0070.eps
88


roth0071.eps
89


roth0072.eps
90


roth0073.eps
91


roth0074.eps
92


roth0075.eps
93


roth0076.eps
94


roth0077.eps
95


roth0078.eps
96


roth0079.eps
97


roth0080.eps
98


roth0081.eps
99


roth0082.eps
100


roth0083.eps
101


roth0084.eps
102


roth0085.eps
103


roth0086.eps
104


roth0087.eps
105


roth0088.eps
106


roth0089.eps
107


roth0090.eps
108


roth0091.eps
109


roth0092.eps
110


roth0093.eps
111


roth0094.eps
112


roth0095.eps
113


roth0096.eps
114


roth0097.eps
115


roth0098.eps
116


roth0099.eps
117


roth0100.eps
118


roth0101.eps
119


roth0102.eps
120


roth0103.eps
121


roth0104.eps
122


roth0105.eps
123


roth0106.eps
124


roth0107.eps
125


roth0108.eps
126


roth0109.eps
127


roth0110.eps
128


roth0111.eps
129


roth0112.eps
130


roth0113.eps
131


roth0114.eps
132


roth0115.eps
133


roth0116.eps
134


roth0117.eps
135


roth0118.eps
136


roth0119.eps
137


roth0120.eps
138


roth0121.eps
139


roth0122.eps
140


roth0123.eps
141


roth0124.eps
142


roth0125.eps
143


roth0126.eps
144


roth0127.eps
145


roth0128.eps
146


roth0129.eps
147


roth0130.eps
148


roth0131.eps
149


roth0132.eps
150


roth0133.eps
151


roth0134.eps
152


roth0135.eps
153


roth0136.eps
154


roth0137.eps
155


roth0138.eps
156


roth0139.eps
157


roth0140.eps
158


roth0141.eps
159


roth0142.eps
160


roth0143.eps
161


roth0144.eps
162


roth0145.eps
163


roth0146.eps
164


roth0147.eps
165


roth0148.eps
166


roth0149.eps
167


roth0150.eps
168


roth0151.eps
169


roth0152.eps
170


roth0153.eps
171


roth0154.eps
172


roth0155.eps
173


roth0156.eps
174


roth0157.eps
175


roth0158.eps
176


roth0159.eps
177


roth0160.eps
178


roth0161.eps
179


roth0162.eps
180


roth0163.eps
181


roth0164.eps
182


roth0165.eps
183


roth0166.eps
184


roth0167.eps
185


roth0168.eps
186


roth0169.eps
187


roth0170.eps
188


roth0171.eps
189


roth0172.eps
190


roth0173.eps
191


roth0174.eps
192


roth0175.eps
193


roth0176.eps
194


roth0177.eps
195

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you for your testimony this afternoon, Ms. 

Roth. 

Mr. Lewis, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. LEWIS, ADJUDICATOR,

PIGFORD V. GLICKMAN

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Lewis. I am the Pigford arbitrator. It 

is a pleasure to be here today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

I have had various roles in the progress of the Pigford v. 

Veneman case from its inception to its current implementation 


roth0178.eps
196

stage. I wanted to identify those to the Committee. And based on 

the opening comments by, I think, all of the Committee Members, 

I would focus my attention and my remarks on the late claim process, although I have provided written testimony to cover some aspects of my other roles. 

I have served as the parties’ mediator from late December or 

early January 1988—1998, I’m sorry, through the entry of the Consent Decree in April 1999, and continued to help them resolve implementation issues as they arose before the appointment of Ms. 

Roth as the monitor in 2000. In the Consent Decree itself I am 

identified as the arbitrator responsible for managing the Track B 

arbitration process that Ms. Roth spoke about. Subsequent to the 

entry of the Consent Decree, Judge Friedman delegated to me the 

responsibility for deciding late claim petitions, what is known as 

paragraph 5(g) of the Consent Decree, and I will focus on those. 

And my final role is as an aide, as a court appointed referee to help 

resolve fee disputes between the Government and counsel. 

Let me focus on my role in the late claim petition process. And 

I am going to read to the Committee what paragraph 5(g) of the 

Consent Decree—how it reads: A claimant who satisfies the definition of the class in paragraph 2(a), above, but who fails to submit 

a completed claim package within 180 days of entry of this Consent 

Decree may petition the court to permit him to nonetheless participate in the claims resolution procedures provided in paragraphs 9 

and 10 below. The court shall grant such a petition only where the 

claimant demonstrates that his failure to submit a timely claim 

was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. 

On December 20, 1999, Judge Friedman delegated to me the responsibility for reviewing petitions filed pursuant to paragraph 

5(g); that is, those who sought to file a claim after the October 12, 

1999 deadline. On July 14, 2000, the court issued an order providing among other things that no late claim petition would be accepted for consideration if filed after September 15, 2000. As the 

monitor’s Chart 2 illustrates, 65,950 late claim petitions were filed 

by the September 15, 2000 deadline. An additional 7,742 were filed 

after the September 15 deadline. Each of the petitioners in the latter category were sent a letter by me informing them that he or 

she had missed the court imposed deadline. Those, and there were 

a few, who subsequently showed that there was a misreading of the 

postmark became part of the 65,950 petitions considered. 

I have completed my initial review of all 65,000 petitions. Of that 

number, I have found 2,268 petitions to have met the ‘‘extraordinary circumstances beyond his control’’ standard contained in 

paragraph 5(g). All of those whose petitions were approved showed 

that it was more likely than not that extraordinary circumstances 

beyond the petitioner’s control caused the petitioner to miss the October 12, 1999 deadline. Hurricane Floyd, which resulted among 

other things in 60 counties in North Carolina being declared disaster areas by FEMA after it struck in mid-September 1999 and 

medical conditions that rendered an individual or his or her caretaker unable to attend to daily matters, provided the predominant 

reasons upon which petitions were approved. Any petitioner approved was sent a claim form, with a 60-day filing window. In 

197

other words, they started the claims process at that point, once 

they were declared to be eligible members of the class. 

The overwhelming reason provided by those whose petitions were 

denied was some form of lack of knowledge: unawareness of the existence of a settlement, disbelief in the settlement’s legitimacy, 

unawareness of deadlines and filing procedures, or disbelief in the 

petitioner’s eligibility under the settlement. This, despite the notice 

provided under the settlement approved by the court as sufficient 

under rule 23. 

The 5(g) process requires that a farmer provide a written statement, signed under penalty of perjury, indicating why the farmer 

missed the original filing deadline and the extraordinary circumstances leading to the missed deadline. Because the population 

of people for whom the late claim process applied might be at a disadvantage by a reliance solely on writing, I employed a cadre of 

law students and recently minted lawyers, totaling 38 at the high 

point, as researchers to contact petitioners, to question them about 

their petitions and to obtain additional information and documentation. Approximately 75 percent of the petitions could be decided on the basis of the petitions themselves. There was some ambiguity in the other approximately 25 percent of the petitions filed. 

Those petitions were referred to one of the researchers for investigation. Each researcher used as a guide a questionnaire based 

upon the reason articulated by the farmer provided in each individual petition. Researchers were instructed, however, to deviate 

from the questionnaire if new information came to light during the 

interview so that I would have the fullest understanding about why 

the farmer had missed the October 1999 filing deadline. If the petitioner could not be reached by telephone, a written questionnaire 

was mailed to him or her. 

Although not provided for in the Consent Decree, I created a 

process permitting late claim petitioners to request reconsideration 

of my decision to deny their participation in the settlement. The reconsideration process provided petitioners with a 60-day window in 

which to request reconsideration of the initial decision to deny 

their late claim petitions. I specifically encouraged petitioners to 

provide additional information and documentation if available. Approximately 21,000 farmers, constituting about 33 percent of the 

total number of denied petitions, have timely requested that I reconsider my initial denial of their late claim petition. If upon reconsideration it became clear that my initial decision was incorrect, or 

that relevant information was not considered, those petitions have 

been approved. Any request that cast doubt on my initial decision 

has been referred to a researcher for investigation. All petitions denied upon reconsideration are being sent letters describing in detail 

how a petitioner has failed to demonstrate, despite all efforts, that 

his or her situation meets the 5(g) standard. 

Greater detail on the late claim process can be found in the six 

reports I have filed with the court regarding the process since November 2001, copies of which have been provided to the Committee. 

The reports also are posted on the monitor’s website for review by 

anyone with Internet access. 

I think I will stop there, and I am happy to answer any questions 

the Committee might have. 

198

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. LEWIS

I have had various roles in the progress of the Pigford v. Veneman case from its 

inception to its current implementation stage and would like to describe briefly 

those roles to you. I have served as the parties’ mediator, the Consent Decree Arbitrator, both for the Track B arbitration process and for the ¶ 5(g) late claim process, 

and as a court-appointed referee for fee disputes.

A) Mediator: My first contact with the parties in the Pigford case came in late December 1997 when the parties contacted me regarding my willingness to serve 

as a mediator in an effort to help them resolve the lawsuit. Beginning in January 1998 through the entry of the Consent Decree in April 1999, I served as the 

parties’ mediator. After the entry of the Decree, especially before the appointment of the Monitor, on a few occasions I attempted to help the parties resolve 

issues arising in the implementation of the decree.

B) Arbitrator: The parties chose me as the arbitrator identified in the consent decree to resolve all claims in which farmers chose Track B—the process that provides for an 8 hour in-person hearing to resolve their claims. Statistics for that 

process are provided in Randi Roth’s Chart 1. There is one additional piece of 

information I wanted to alert you to in the Track B process, that is that the total 

number of Track B claims filed totals 237, rather than the 174 identified in 

Chart 1. The difference between the 174 number mentioned in Chart 1 and the 

237 I have just mentioned is that because, even though the consent decree’s language in Paragraph 5(d) states that a choice of tracks is irrevocable, USDA generally has been willing to permit farmers to switch from Track B to Track A. 

Sixty farmers have chosen to switch tracks. In such instances, the Facilitator 

sends to that farmer a claim form for use in the Track A process, and that claim 

is processed under the decree’s terms for Track A claims. The remainder of the 

difference is attributable to farmers who withdrew their claims.

C) Paragraph 5(g), Late Claim Petitions: Paragraph 5(g) of the consent decree provides that:

A claimant who satisfies the definition of the class in ¶ 2(a), above, but who fails 

to submit a completed claim package within 180 days of entry of this Consent 

Decree may petition the Court to permit him to nonetheless participate in the 

claims resolution procedures provided in ¶¶ 9 & 10, below. The Court shall grant 

such a petition only where the claimant demonstrates that his failure to submit 

a timely claim was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.

On December 20, 1999, Judge Friedman delegated to me the responsibility for reviewing petitions filed pursuant to ¶ 5(g), that is, those who sought to file a claim 

after the October 12, 1999 deadline. On July 14, 2000, the Court issued an order 

providing, among other things, that no late claim petition would be accepted for consideration if filed after September 15, 2000. As the Monitor’s Chart 2 illustrates, 

65,950 late claim petitions were filed by the September 15, 2000 deadline. An additional, 7,742 were filed after the September 15, 2000 deadline. Each of the petitioners in the latter category was sent a letter by me informing them that he or 

she had missed the court imposed deadline; those who subsequently showed that 

there was a misreading of the postmark became part of the 65,950 petitions considered. 

I have completed my initial review of all 65,950 petitions. Of the 65,950, I have 

found 2,268 petitions to have met the ‘‘extraordinary circumstances beyond his control’’ standard contained in ¶ 5(g). All of those whose petitions were approved showed 

that it was more likely than not that extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control caused the petitioner to miss the October 12, 1999 deadline. Hurricane Floyd, which resulted, among other things, in 60 counties in North Carolina 

being declared disaster areas by FEMA after it struck in mid-September 1999, and 

medical conditions that rendered an individual or his/her caretaker unable to attend 

to daily matters, provided the predominant reasons upon which petitions were approved. Any petitioner approved was sent a Claim Form, with a sixty-day filing window. 

The overwhelming reason provided by those whose petitions were denied was 

some form of lack of knowledge: unawareness of the existence of the settlement, disbelief in the settlement’s legitimacy, unawareness of deadlines and filing procedures, or disbelief in the petitioner’s eligibility under the settlement. This, despite 

the notice provided under the settlement, approved by the Court as ‘‘sufficient under 

Rule 23.’’

199

The ¶ 5(g) process requires that a farmer provide a written statement, signed 

under the penalty of perjury, indicating why the farmer missed the original filing 

deadline of October 12, 1999 and the ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ leading to the 

missed deadline. Because the population of people for whom the late claim process 

applied might be disadvantaged by a reliance solely on writings, I employed a cadre 

of law students and recently-minted lawyers (totaling 38 at the high point) as researchers to contact petitioners to question them about their petitions, and to obtain 

additional information and documentation. Approximately 75% of the petitions could 

be decided on the basis of the petitions themselves. There was ambiguity in the 

other approximately 25% of the petitions filed. Those petitions were referred to one 

of the researchers for investigation. Each researcher used as a guide a questionnaire 

based upon the reason provided in each individual petition. Researchers were instructed, however, to deviate from the questionnaire if new information came to 

light during the interview so that I would have the fullest understanding about why 

the farmer had missed the October 1999 filing deadline. If the petitioner could not 

be reached by telephone, a written questionnaire was mailed to him or her. 

Although not provided for in the consent decree, I created a process permitting 

late claim petitioners to request reconsideration of my decision to deny their participation in the Pigford settlement. The reconsideration process provided petitioners 

with a 60 day window in which to request reconsideration of the initial decision to 

deny their late claim petitions. I specifically encouraged petitioners to provided additional information and documentation, if available. Approximately 21,011 farmers, 

constituting approximately 33% of the total number of denied petitions, have timely 

requested that I reconsider my initial denial of their late claim petition. If upon reconsideration, it became clear that my initial decision was incorrect, or that relevant 

information was not considered, those petitions have been approved. Any request 

that casts doubt on my initial decision has been referred to a researcher for investigation. All petitions denied upon reconsideration are being sent letters describing 

in detail how a petitioner has failed to demonstrate, despite all efforts, that his or 

her situation meets the 5(g) standard. 

Greater detail on the late claim process can be found in the six reports I have 

filed with the Court regarding the process since November 2001, copies of which 

have been provided to the Committee. The reports also are posted on the Monitor’s 

website for review by anyone with internet access. On more than one occasion, late 

claim petitioners have attempted to address the fact of their denial to the Court. 

On each such occasion of which I am aware, and most recently on September 13, 

2004, the Court has upheld the late claim petition process I have described.

D) Fee Disputes: On December 30, 2002, the Court referred to me fee disputes arising between class counsel and the government. Under the terms of the Court’s 

order, quarterly fee petitions are to be filed by class counsel, the government responds to those petitions in writing, and my task is then to engage the parties 

in discussions designed to resolve any outstanding issues. If the parties are successful in resolving their dispute, they so indicate to the Court by filing a stipulation. If the parties are unsuccessful in their efforts, I am required to submit 

findings and recommendations to the Court on the fees in dispute.

I am happy to answer any questions members of the Committee might have.

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. And our last witness 

this afternoon will be Mr. Pires. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER PIRES, CLASS COUNSEL, 

PIGFORD V. GLICKMAN

Mr. PIRES. Thank you. Can you hear me? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. 

Mr. PIRES. My name is Alexander Pires. I’m the lead attorney 

and co-lead counsel in the Pigford case. I want to thank you all for 

inviting me. 

Other than 8 years at the Department of Justice I have spent my 

entire career representing farmers and that’s what I do. I sue the 

Government and I sue companies on behalf of farmers and that’s 

all I do. Discrimination cases are very, very difficult, and Pigford

was a difficult case. 

200

There was a case prior to Pigford called Williams. It was a much 

bigger black farmers case, and it failed. It was in the District of 

Columbia here. It was filed in 1995 and it was over in 1997. That 

case was handled by Mr. Myart, who I believe is here, and other 

lawyers. We studied that case and tried to figure out a way to help 

black farmers at least in some limited way. And the Pigford case 

grew from the failures of the Williams case and our idea was to try 

to file a black farmers case that would get some relief and would 

get money. 

Since that time I also filed a case for Hispanic farmers, for 

women farmers, for Native American farmers, and for tobacco 

farmers. The tobacco farmers case we just settled, and we got a little over a billion dollars in that case. The other cases are tied up 

in the court still. They are all being handled by very large law 

firms, very famous law firms with hundreds of lawyers. It’s very 

hard to win these cases. 

Point number 2 is the Pigford case is a very, very limited case. 

The idea was to try to take care of the people who had complained 

about discrimination. When we started we were hoping to represent a thousand farmers. That was our goal. We ended up with 

22,000. 

Point number three is, when we talked about settling this case, 

we had four black firms, law firms, and we had four white law 

firms. And in the Committee discussing it we had Charles Ogletree 

from Harvard University. And the number one demand of the black 

lawyers was that black people get money. You need to understand 

that. It was not about injunctive relief. It was not about getting all 

kinds of requirements from USDA. Congress does that all the time. 

You can do that better than a court can do that. You can require 

them through legislation to do what you want. It was about money. 

We studied all of the class action cases and Pigford demanded 

the largest recovery per person in the history of the United States. 

There was no case in this country where the individual person in 

a class action case has gotten more money. There are some where 

there’s a thousand people, but I’m talking about a large class action 

case. So far about 13,500 people have gotten $50,000 tax free. 

That’s about $75,000 in real dollars. We predict it’s going to end 

up being around 16-17,000. It is a very limited case. 

The other cases that we studied, the Denny’s case that you all 

know of, the Avis case, even the Japanese internment case, the 

Coca-Cola case, all those cases got far less than the individual 

black farmers got in this case. So to that extent it was somewhat 

successful. But it’s had problems because there are so many black 

farmers that Pigford could only take care of a small percentage of 

them. 

I’ve often said this, that there’s about 280 million people in this 

country and about 13 percent of them are black. You can figure out 

the math. There are literally millions and millions of black people, 

particularly in the South, and they all came from the farm in one 

way or another. This was a rural country. So they associate with 

farming and they associate with USDA. We went on the road to 

find them and we—I gave, I think, over 200 talks with J.L. Chestnut and other black leaders in the South. We went to Alabama 42 

times to find black farmers. And most people, I’ve found, love the 

201

life of farming. Most black farmers in the South love that life more 

than any other life. So when you’re looking at why there were so 

many people who filed late, I don’t think it’s all that surprising. We 

only got 22,000 in this case. There are literally thousands of black 

farmers out there, part time, full-time, who would like to have participated. 

Point number 5, who’s complaining? The 13,000 who got paid are 

not complaining. But those who lost and are on appeal, they’re 

complaining, and I understand that. The late filers are complaining. There are 65,000 of them. I understand. In fairness to Michael Lewis, he had his hands somewhat tied. He’s limited to what 

the Consent Decree states. I remember discussions about the late 

filers and we predicted about 3,000 people would file late. 

Pigford is not a reparations case. It is not a black reparations 

case. But, people associated it with that effort. And that is why I 

think many, many black farmers are mad, and justifiably so. 

What can Congress do? I think there are only three choices for 

you. There is very little that the monitor can do. There is very little 

that Michael Lewis can do to help these people. There is very little 

that I can do in the Pigford case. 

There are three choices. One is, the Government could consent 

to let in the 65,000. That is the easiest route. If you happen to 

know somebody at the White House who could help us, that would 

be great. We could sign the stipulation and all 65,000 would be in 

tomorrow. That would be lovely. I would like that. 

I don’t happen to know Mr. Bush. I don’t know the President at 

all. But that is the fastest way, the Administration agrees and everybody gets in. Option number 2 is, Congress can pass legislation 

that extends the statute of limitations, waives the statute of limitations for these 65,000, waives the issue of res judicata, and allows 

them all in; it would be a bill not much different than the original 

bill we got. Rather difficult for you, I understand, but that is an 

option. 

And the third choice is, that Congress would pass legislation that 

allows the claims to go administratively to USDA. You would waive 

statute of limitations, you would waive res judicata, and they could 

file with the agency. Of course, the third the one I can hear already 

the chorus at the back saying, we don’t want to go to USDA and 

have them decide our claims, that is where we were before. But, 

it is an option. 

The Pigford case is controversial, and always will be. I met Tim 

Pigford so, so long ago, 8 years ago, 9 years ago. He is a very 

unique man, and has long since dropped out of this process to go 

back to his life. 

But, at the beginning, he was just trying to get some money for 

a limited group of black farmers that had seen what had happened 

in Williams, and were just trying to get their complaints resolved. 

It has evolved into obviously something else much bigger than all 

of us. 

I thank you all very much for inviting me, and I hope this was 

helpful. 

[Alexander Pires did not submit written testimony prior to the 

hearing.] 

202

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the 

witnesses for their testimony here this afternoon. 

At this time the Members of the panel that are here will have 

5 minutes to question the witnesses. Mr. Bachus has indicated that 

he is handling a bill over on the floor of the House of Representatives right now and hopes to make it back here, because he has 

been very concerned about this matter as well. But he is not sure 

if he is going to be able to make it or not. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. I will begin with you, if I can, 

Mr. Haynie. Would you again describe your involvement in the formation of the consent decree and were your views represented? 

And what were your expectations, especially in terms of discovery, 

the discovery process, and, do you—what is your view about whether or not black farmers have been adequately notified? 

I know that is a lot of questions. You can take them in any order 

that you like. 

Mr. HAYNIE. Okay. In my opinion, the process was chaotic and 

confusing. And the average black farmer didn’t understand it. They 

were called in to meetings. And what happened, in my opinion, Mr. 

Pires was understaffed to handle the number of farmers that were 

involved in this lawsuit. And as a result, they would hold a meeting, and it would be about 200 farmers. 

And it would be volunteers or students who—people who 

weren’t—didn’t understand the law, weren’t competent for filling 

out applications. And, as a result of this, a lot of farmers were denied, because the people who were filling out the applications didn’t 

understand the process, or weren’t attorneys. And so the information was not translated onto the documents correctly, or they were 

told that they didn’t need documents that later on, after they got 

denied, that they found out that they needed. 

We were involved, John Boyd and I were involved in this process, 

and tried to work this thing out, and hopefully that it would be a 

settlement, and that there was some things that we would do to 

protect black farmers. They are an endangered species. 

And nothing in this settlement has gone on for the education of 

black farmers to create opportunities for young people to get in. 

There has been nothing in the settlement to really put an end to 

discrimination in the USDA. 

I have been the victim of having an official, USDA official have 

a loaded gun in his office for me. My son has been the victim of 

discrimination. After they investigated his discrimination, the district director filed an IG report, thus causing a whole other investigation of his complaint. 

My wife, who has applied for rural development loans, was the 

victim of discrimination, and as well as when she was farming, she 

was the victim of discrimination. So the settlement has done nothing to end the systemic discrimination in USDA. And that is my 

biggest concern, is that the process has not been fixed and the settlement hasn’t corrected any of the problem. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Roth, let me move to you if I can. When you review petitions 

for a review of Track A claims that have been denied, what are the 

types of additional information that you allow to be included in reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\092804\96110.000 HJUD1 PsN: 96110
203

consideration? And, do you direct the adjudicator or arbitrator to 

consider such additional information? 

Ms. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether I let information 

in in the petition process is governed by a court order. The order 

of reference issued April 4th, 2000, states that I am allowed to let 

information in if the person—if the party submitting it can show 

that there was a flaw or mistake in the claims process, and that 

the failure to let the information in would result in a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. 

So I apply those two tests to each piece of additional information 

that is submitted. Typically the kinds of information that are submitted and do get in when the test is met are the names of additional similarly situated white farmers, and just all different kinds 

of documents about the case. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lewis, let me turn to you, if I can now. I have only got about 

another minute, so I am going to have to be quick, and I would ask 

if you could be as well. 

Mr. LEWIS. I will try. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Based on your experience in handling 

the late-filed claims, what reasons do you think caused nearly 

65,000 potential claimants to file their claims after the filing deadline, and do you believe these farmers knew of the settlement but 

failed to timely file? 

Mr. LEWIS. I know that roughly 50 percent of them did know of 

the settlement. I mean, because of the reasons that they put forward in their petition. About 50 percent said that they did not 

know of the settlement. 

It is—continues to be a mystery to me as to why there were so 

many late filers, because the notice that accompanied or that followed Judge Friedman’s July 14th, 2000 order which set the deadline of September 15th, 2000, was distributed less broadly than the 

notice announcing the lawsuit. 

And the only thing I have concluded is that the fact that there 

were real live people who had received real live checks helped to 

spread knowledge about the lawsuit in a way that simply someone 

reading a notice announcing the settlement did not. But, that is, 

Mr. Chairman, just a guess. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, if someone put on their form 

in the extended—and those that missed the deadline, the original 

deadline, if they put in their form that they didn’t hear about it, 

would that be—would that disqualify them right off the bat? 

Mr. LEWIS. That would disqualify them right off the bat. If—they 

also were told that they could ask for reconsideration if they wanted to. 

Mr. SCOTT. If they put they didn’t know, so if, in fact, they didn’t 

know, if they had competent counsel, they wouldn’t put that down, 

would they? 

Mr. LEWIS. Probably not, Congressman Scott. But, very few of 

the petitions, the late-claim petitions—there appeared to be not 

very much lawyer involvement in the late claim petition process, 

let me put it that way. 

204

Mr. SCOTT. Well, of all of the people that filed, 75 percent approximately filed late. Is that right? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think that is right. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. 76. 

Mr. LEWIS. Somewhere on that order. 

Mr. SCOTT. Doesn’t that just tell you that there is something 

wrong with the process? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, there were also 7,700 people who missed the 

second deadline. So I don’t know what the answer is. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, how many of those people have bona fide 

claims, if you would ever get to the merits? 

Mr. LEWIS. I have no idea. The late claim—what was submitted 

was a late claim petition, that was a two-sided form. It was one 

page, two sides. So I——

Mr. SCOTT. Is it fair to say that certainly some have valid claims, 

and, in fact, some don’t? 

Mr. LEWIS. Oh, that certainly is true. We know that from both—

from the folks who have been admitted into the process. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, I mean, when all is said and done, wouldn’t the 

fair thing to do to get to—would be to get to the merits, one way 

or the other. Now, your hands may be tied because of what your 

orders were from the consent decree; is that right? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you object if we opened it up so that people 

could actually have their cases heard? 

Mr. LEWIS. That is not my decision. Congress can do whatever 

it wants to do here. But—— Mr. SCOTT. You certainly wouldn’t object? 

Mr. LEWIS. Certainly not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Pires, did—was there any motion made to open—

when the—when people filed late, did you file any motions to have 

them—to help them get in, or keep them out? 

Mr. PIRES. Well, prior to—the first time we found there were people late we had 1,100 of them. And we spent a lot of time trying 

to get them in. And we actually did get the first 1,100 in, as part 

of our settlement, as part of a process for which I took—we took 

quite a beating. We did get the first 1,100 in, for which I was chastised. It is complicated what happened. After that—— Mr. SCOTT. Do you have any conflict of interest? I mean, if others 

come in, that doesn’t hurt the ones that are already in; is that 

right? 

Mr. PIRES. Well, I would like as many as possible. I mean, if you 

are asking me his question, I would love you to pass a piece of legislation to let everybody in over the next 2 years. That would 

be——

Mr. SCOTT. Does anybody object to having cases heard on the 

merits, getting through all of this procedural deadlines, you have 

got 65,000 people who filed, plus the 20,000. Does anybody object 

to having cases heard on the merits? 

Mr. PIRES. No, sir, not at all. Not that I know of. 

Mr. SCOTT. Anybody doubt that that would be a good thing? 

Mr. PIRES. It would be a great thing. 

Mr. SCOTT. What do we need to do to bring that about? 

Mr. PIRES. Can I answer that? 

205

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. 

Mr. PIRES. I believe it requires legislation from the House and 

the Senate, not much more complicated than the original legislation you passed in 1999. A sentence or two that would allow them 

in. Yes, sir. I think that would be fantastic. 

Mr. SCOTT. That would fix it, Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. It would—I think it would fix it. I don’t know—I don’t 

know what the legal problems would be given that there is—has 

been or would be—would have been a determination on whether 

they were eligible—— Mr. SCOTT. We are talking about claims—we are not talking 

about claims of one individual against another. We are talking 

about claims against the Government. So we have a little bit more 

flexibility then we would if we were trying to balance individual 

against individual. 

Mr. LEWIS. My answer was just—I don’t know what legal problems there might be in trying to change a consent decree in this 

manner after the fact. I am not saying it is a bad idea, I just—I 

don’t know the answer to your question, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. PIRES. It would have to be very carefully drafted, because 

both the statute of limitations and the res judicata defenses would 

be there, and the Justice Department would fight that. You would 

have to be very careful. But you have got great counsel. You have 

got legislative counsel. You have the best there is. 

So I am sure you can get around that in some way. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Roth, if I can ask one additional question. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the gentleman is, by unanimous consent, granted another minute? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Roth, when people appeal to you, having lost the original, 

what kinds of things do you find that you can have the original decision of denial reversed? What have you done for people? I understand that you have a fairly substantial rate of overturning the 

original denials so that people actually get money. 

What have you done for them that wasn’t done originally? 

Ms. ROTH. Yes, Congressman Scott. For the most part—I don’t 

have the exact statistics, but I would say in most of the cases, 

where a farmer prevails at the monitor level, it is because some additional pieces of evidence that were allowed in through our process. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that the similarly situated white farmer issue? 

Ms. ROTH. Of those cases, in very many of the cases, yes it is the 

similarly situated—if I had to say one piece of evidence that most 

often turns it around in the petition process, it is probably the 

similarly situated white farmer. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you developed a data bank so that each farmer 

wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel every time they want to have 

a case heard, that you have people in each county that might be 

similarly situated that people look to? 

Because, it has been pointed out that some farmers just don’t 

have access to that information. 

Ms. ROTH. I understand the question, Congressman Scott. But, 

I am not allowed to do that, the way my reference order is set up. 

I am restricted to very particular things from my record, and I 

206

can’t go outside of the record of one farmer’s case to pick a white 

farmer and put it in that farmer’s case. 

So I am restricted to five specific categories of information. I am 

not allowed to do that. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has once again expired. The 

gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Ms. Roth, on that same issue. Is that part of the consent—the settlement agreement, or is that part of a judicial order 

that you—that restricts you? 

Ms. ROTH. Yes. Congressman Watt, the rules about what I may 

and may not do in the petitions process come from a separate 

order. It is not from the consent decree. 

Mr. WATT. So it is not part of the consent decree? 

Ms. ROTH. Correct. 

Mr. WATT. That order was issued by Judge Friedman? 

Ms. ROTH. Yes. By Judge Friedman on April 4th of 2000. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Pires, you represent the class members only after 

they are determined to be a part of the class. Do you technically 

represent—do you represent the farmer who have—who filed late? 

Are they part of your class that you represent, or are they outside 

of the class technically? 

Mr. PIRES. I have always been—taken the assumption that if 

they are a black farmer, and they meet the definition of the class 

they are our clients, yes. Now, you are asking me a difficult question, because having filed late, and not having any determination 

of whether they are eligible, I don’t know whether they will ever 

be able to participate—— Mr. WATT. I guess the question I am asking is, do they have access to your advice in the preparation and filing of their petitions 

to be waived from being late? 

Mr. PIRES. We had a lot of farmers who asked us how to file a 

late filing, yes. But, like I said earlier, we expected 3,000 to actually file. And—— Mr. WATT. Well, you got 1,100 in? 

Mr. PIRES. I got 1,100 in. 

Mr. WATT. Are those the people who asked you to represent 

them? 

Mr. PIRES. That was the first group of late filers. We got them 

in and then there another group, but we were unsuccessful, the 

Government after that point didn’t want to negotiate anymore. And 

then, of course, it started piling up, and we ended up with I believe 

65,000. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. I take it that the settlement agreement did not 

provide for a notice to the class, there was a direct mail notice to 

potential claimants? 

Mr. PIRES. We didn’t—we didn’t know who they were. 

Mr. WATT. Now——

Mr. PIRES. I don’t understand how—is there such a list of every 

black farmer in America? I wish there was. 

Mr. WATT. Well, my understanding is that the USDA conducts 

regular mailings to every farmer. Is that not the case? 

Mr. PIRES. I don’t think most of the participants in the case ever 

wanted to trust the USDA’s list and USDA’s system on a major 

class action. 

207

Mr. WATT. I am not saying that necessarily would have been the 

exclusive way to give notice. But wouldn’t—wouldn’t that have 

been a reasonable way to give notice to potential class members, 

to do a mailing by the USDA to all farmers? 

Mr. PIRES. I don’t think it would have—— Mr. WATT. Does the USDA regularly communicate with farmers 

about various issues? 

Mr. HAYNIE. Yes. And I thank you for asking those questions. 

The problem was, Mr. Pires waived discovery. Therefore, the black 

farmers didn’t have adequate access to USDA information. And it 

was one of the requirements why they couldn’t fill out these similarly-situated white farmers, because the class counsel waived discovery. And that was a big problem for black farmers in prevailing 

in this lawsuit. 

Mr. WATT. So are you saying discovery might have yielded a list 

of potential class members? 

Mr. HAYNIE. That is correct? 

Mr. WATT. As well as information about white farmers who were 

similarly situated? 

Mr. HAYNIE. That is correct. That is why that is a big problem 

for black farmers. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Pires, have you filed a request to the court or a 

motion of any kind with USDA or the Department of Justice to 

seek to change the consent decree? 

Mr. PIRES. Many times. But with respect to the late filers, is that 

what you are referring to? 

Mr. WATT. Yes. 

Mr. PIRES. No, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Would you like 

an additional minute? 

Mr. WATT. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is recognized for an additional 

minute. We are going to go to a second round also. So—— Mr. WATT. Well, if you are going to a second round, I will just 

wait. Well, but since I am here, let me just pursue this one thing. 

Because, one of the things I was struck by was you said that it 

would be a fairly complicated order to revise the consent decree? 

And it seems to me that the appropriate person, the best person, 

best situated to word that, would be the class counsel. And one 

place that that would be—could be worded would be in a motion 

to revise the consent decree which might then be picked up Congressionally, the same language. 

Mr. PIRES. No, sir, that is not correct. In a nutshell, I cannot 

change the consent decree by myself. Without the Government’s 

consent, no matter what I want, I can’t do it without the Government, sir. 

Mr. WATT. I understand that. But you could file a motion, could 

you not? You have asked the court to change various aspects of the 

consent decree, haven’t you? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. But you can answer the question. 

Mr. PIRES. Yes, I have. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. All right. I am not trying to cross-examine you 

about this. I am just trying to figure out how best to get some lanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\092804\96110.000 HJUD1 PsN: 96110
208

guage that would be used as a vehicle by Congress to revise the 

consent decree. 

Mr. PIRES. We have submitted language to you. 

Mr. WATT. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. We are 

going to go to a second round of questions now, because of the importance of this hearing. 

And, Mr. Pires, I hadn’t asked you any questions last time, so 

I will start with you, if I can. 

How many black farmers were your clients when the consent decree was negotiated? 

Mr. PIRES. I would have to guess. I don’t know. 

Mr. CHABOT. Roughly. 

Mr. PIRES. Gosh, I honestly wouldn’t know because——

Mr. CHABOT. Well, let me ask you this then. 

Mr. PIRES. Please. I don’t want to guess. 

Mr. CHABOT. I understand. I appreciate that. How did you acquire the viewpoints of those farmers that you did not represent? 

And were there objections to the proposed settlement, either by 

your clients or those that you didn’t represent? And how was it 

that you ultimately decided to accept the settlement. 

Mr. PIRES. Yes, sir. That is fair. Mr. Chairman, we had eight law 

firms involved. We invited any law firm in the country that wanted 

to join, as long as they didn’t charge anything to the clients. That 

was the rule. So we had eight. None of the major law firms in the 

United States wanted to work on Pigford. We asked them all. 

Pigford was an orphan case, if you know what that means. It is a 

case that nobody wants. 

And we ended up with eight, four black, four white firms. We 

had some religious leaders who helped us, like Reverend Lowry. 

We had some legal leaders like J.L. Chestnut. We had Charles 

Ogletree from Harvard, who was at the final two negotiations, and 

actually was at the Justice Department table for the final negotiations. 

The feeling was that most major class action cases result in 

meaningless language, injunctive relief, paragraph after paragraph 

as to what the defendant shall do. And Charles Ogletree, J.L. 

Chestnut and others felt strongly that that would never fly in the 

Black community, that they wanted payment, something that was 

meaningful, and they wanted the largest single recovery in the history of the country. 

So when we were at the table, in the Justice Department, the top 

floor of the building, where the assistant attorney generals and so 

forth, it was all about a recovery that was significant and that was 

tax free. The other issues, what was wrong with USDA, I mean everybody knew what was wrong with USDA. 

I had already sued USDA by that time probably two dozen times. 

So it wasn’t that I didn’t know, and the other lawyers didn’t know 

what was wrong with USDA. But, it was really about quickly getting money and having a system to get to people, not that this 

would change their lives, but that it was a symbol of what white 

USDA had done wrong to both Blacks and Hispanics, and of course 

Hispanics were not included. So it was a consensus. 

209

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I know you want to answer 

a question, Mr. Haynie, or comment. Let me ask you in addition 

to that, could you comment on the notice? That is obviously a very 

big issue here, and whether or not that you think the notice was 

adequate? Not what you think, but I would like you to express—— Mr. HAYNIE. The notice was not adequate. I would like to comment on that. I was there at that hearing. And all of the farmers 

objected to consent decree. And even the farmers that Mr. Pires 

were representing, they were not allowed to go into this negotiation. So it was mind boggling how everybody there was objecting 

to the settlement, yet the attorney that was representing everybody 

moved forward with the settlement. 

This settlement, what it does, it takes farmers out of the class 

and puts them on an individual fight with the Government in trying to prove their discrimination, when the attorney that has represented you has waived discovery in denying you to all of the access, which are the tools you use to defend yourself. 

So it is mind boggling how the attorney, who is supposed to be 

representing black farmers, does not listen to the objections, and 

moves forward with the settlement when everybody is not in agreement with it. And he didn’t have the staff to serve the notice to 

the number of people, and as a result, everybody was filling out 

forms for farmers and they came up short. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Let me—my time is almost up here, so 

let me go back to you, if I can, Mr. Pires. Why was 180 days chosen 

as the filing deadline? 

Mr. PIRES. Which filing deadline, Mr. Chairman? I am sorry. 

Mr. CHABOT. The initial—— Mr. PIRES. I believe that was directly in the consent decree, I believe. Yes. I believe it was negotiated in the original consent decree, 

the 180 days, I believe. 

Mr. CHABOT. Do you know why that was, though? I mean, Mr. 

Lewis, or could you shed any light on that? 

Mr. LEWIS. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I cannot. It has been 

5 years. 

Mr. CHABOT. The witnesses are always able to supplement their 

testimony. And so, if any of these things, any of the witnesses 

would like to supplement, you will have the opportunity to do that. 

And my time has expired. So I will now yield to the gentlemen for 

Virginia for 5 additional minutes to question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pires, did you file a motion last month in court opposing 

farmers’ request to open up the deadline? 

Mr. PIRES. There were various motions filed by various people. 

I mean, there has been hundreds of motions filed. But, there were 

motions filed by people who were not representing the class that 

we opposed, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. The answer is yes, you did? 

Mr. PIRES. I oppose anything that is not in the interests of the 

class. That is what I do for a living. So, yes, there were motions, 

and I did oppose them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Roth, on Track A, when people—when—Mr. 

Lewis, first. What portion of the Track A claimants actually got 

some money? 

210

Mr. LEWIS. I am sorry, Mr. Scott. I don’t have anything to do 

with Track A and can’t answer that question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms Roth. 

Ms. ROTH. Congressman Scott, about 61 percent of the people 

who went through Track A won on their first time through. Of the 

8,000 or so people who lost, about 4,900 or so petitioned for monitor 

review. The remaining petitions were Government petitions. Of the 

farmers who have gone through the petition process, about 50 percent are prevailing in that process. 

But, I don’t have the authority, in the petitions process, to say 

they won or lost. I only have the authority to remand to the adjudicator in Track A. But the adjudicator in Track A is following my 

recommendations about 90 percent of the time. So about 13,500 

claimants have won. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, to win, you have to find the similarly situated 

white farmer; is that right? 

Ms. ROTH. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. How, without the discovery that Mr. Haynie has 

pointed out, where do they get this information? 

Ms. ROTH. Congressman Scott, of course, I don’t really know 

where they get the information. I just know what shows up in the 

file. But the one thing I can tell you from reading files, is that 

some people get it by going to the county courthouse and looking 

for whose names are on, you know, documents that show that a 

loan happened, a mortgage, or a chattel, a chattel security agreement, and then they submit those names. 

Mr. SCOTT. Has that been a problem in people getting compensated, because they cannot get the information—do they have 

subpoena power to get that information? 

Ms. ROTH. Not that I know of. No. You mean, if someone is in 

the Track A claim process, can they subpoena—in the Track A 

process? No. 

Mr. SCOTT. So that would be a barrier to getting, for a person 

with a bona fide claim, getting—actually getting paid? 

Ms. ROTH. Many of the cases in which people lose, it is because 

they did not have—they were not able to specifically identify a 

similarly situated white farmer. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that need to be corrected? 

Ms. ROTH. That is not something I can comment on. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Are you involved in Track B claims? 

Ms. ROTH. I review petitions in the Track B process as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Haynie suggested some problems with the calculations for damages under Track B. Have you seen the same 

kinds of problems? 

Ms. ROTH. I really couldn’t say whether I have seen the exact 

kinds of problems Mr. Haynie described. But, we do carefully review the evidence on both sides of damages questions in Track B 

and make our decisions. That is really all I can say about that. 

Mr. SCOTT. As I understand the consent decree, there was no 

technical admission of discrimination. Is there any question in anybody’s mind that there was, in fact, discrimination in just about 

every—each and every one of these cases? 

211

Mr. PIRES. I can answer. There were about 3,800 farmers who 

lost and did not appeal, even though they had access to lawyers. 

There were some cases where there—they should not have been in 

the case. But for those, the vast majority of them I felt had legitimate claims. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. When you look at Track A, I thought the idea was 

that these are going to be pretty well, straightforward cases. If you 

are in the class, you ought to get the money without a lot of hassle. 

And I get the sense that the consent decree did not anticipate some 

of these procedural and burden of proof problems. 

Mr. PIRES. You are bringing up what is, for many people, the 

most important issue. These are claims against the Treasury. This 

is—and when we were negotiating what the standard had to be, 

the issue was, how does an adjudicator, a ruler, a neutral know 

when there is discrimination against Black folks, Hispanics, 

women, how do you know? It has to be weighed against something. 

So the negotiations were about the elements. You have to be a 

black farmer. You have to have farmed during that period of time. 

You had to have applied for a loan or tried to get a loan. You had 

to be discriminated against. How did you know? How did you know 

you were discriminated against? 

Somebody under similar circumstances got a loan and you didn’t. 

The standard was, which is what the law is, you had to show a 

white person got better treatment than you did. What was interesting, Congressman Scott, was that for the 13,500 who won, and 

some of those who lost, they had no trouble naming a white person 

in their community that had better treatment. 

I will admit to you there were people who put down the name 

of a white person whom they thought had better treatment. They 

put names of two or three. And they were wrong. And on appeal, 

we spent an enormous amount of time, months and months trying 

to get a correct white name. We had two shots at those. 

I would admit to you that that was the most difficult part of the 

case for some people, how to find someone in their community who 

was treated better than they were, who was white. That was difficult. But, that is also a requirement of the law, this is after all 

a lawsuit. No one is going to waive that part of it. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Ms. Roth, in Appendix 1, and we are trying to locate 

the place, you say that the claims process was flawed. Can you explain what you meant when you said that? 

Ms. ROTH. Congressman, what I think you might be referring to, 

when I explained how we get additional evidence in the petitions 

or appeals process. And the test for that is that new evidence can 

come in if the moving party shows a flaw or mistake in the claims 

process that would result in the fundamental miscarriage of justice 

if the evidence were not let in. I don’t think it actually says it on 

the chart. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Mr. Pires, you negotiated a consent decree, the 

settlement that led to the consent decree. Right? 

Mr. PIRES. With many others. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. With others. Okay. So you represent the class of people who were eligible to be covered by that consent decree? 

212

Mr. PIRES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. What role, then, do you play in processing of the individuals claims and the—and marshalling and presenting evidence 

on behalf of class members that there was a similarly situated individual, white individual, that they—their treatment didn’t measure 

up to? 

Mr. PIRES. Throughout 1999 and into 2000, but mostly 1999, we 

went out to where the farmers live. I mean, we were gone the 

whole year. And we went to their local high schools, their local 

community centers. And we actually met with the black farmers. 

And most people signed up and filled out the forms in the presence 

of a lawyer, as Mr. Haynie said, sometimes there weren’t enough 

lawyers. And we helped them fill them out. It had to be signed by 

a lawyer. Each application had to be signed by a lawyer. 

Most, talking about the similarly situated white farmers, most 

black farmers knew one, two, three names of white people in their 

community who they thought got preferential treatment. That 

didn’t require——

Mr. SCOTT. That is the people who actually got in the class. 

Mr. PIRES. That was all 22,000, sir. That was everybody. Nobody, 

of the 22,000——

Mr. WATT. I guess the question I am asking is, do you have—

does anybody have a responsibility to the people who didn’t get in 

the class? Who has a responsibility to them to either try to get 

them in the class, or—didn’t I hear—did I understand that you opposed a motion to get them into the class? 

Mr. PIRES. It is not that simple. I wish it was. 

Mr. WATT. Well, I am not trying to simplify it. Either you opposed it or you didn’t. I am trying to figure out, obviously, you had 

a settlement, you negotiated a settlement. Some people you—that 

settlement then said, each individual then must go and prove 

something beyond just the settlement. For some of those people, 

you performed the role of actually marshalling and presenting the 

evidence. 

Mr. PIRES. And we still are. Congressman, what—here is the 

problem. Because I want to help you help us. We have a lot of responsibilities for the class members. And we are nowhere near 

done. We are still working for the 22,000. There are a lot of people 

who haven’t been paid. Lots of appeals. Lots of petitions. Lots of 

problems. We work on them every day. 

That is what Judge Friedman wants me to do. He wants me to 

look out for class members, and take care of them. That is what 

we do every day. 

Mr. WATT. So are you defining the class members as those 22,000 

people, and I guess the question I am asking is, is there somebody 

out there who is advocating and representing the people who didn’t 

get into that 22,000 people, the 65,000 people or so, who didn’t 

meet the deadline? 

Mr. PIRES. No, Congressman, that is not what I meant. What I 

meant is, if tomorrow another 50,000 people came along and said, 

I also want to file with the court and I would like to get into 

Pigford, I know from 30 years of experience that I cannot by myself 

reopen Pigford and let not only the other 65,000, this 50,000, I 

213

can’t do that without the Government’s consent. And they will not 

consent. 

I have been working with them for 8 years, and I can tell you 

they won’t. So what do I do? We seek to help them. That is why 

we are here. You have to help them. We are not going to be able 

to get them through the Pigford case. Judge Friedman is not going 

to reopen it, because the Government would never consent to it. 

Could you get us legislation that would reopen a similar case like 

this? Yes. But, the Government is never, ever going to consent to 

reopening Pigford. I know that. So I don’t want to abuse the system by trying to spend a lot of my energy on something that I 

know from 31 years will not work. What I do want to do is take 

care of the people who are in the——

Mr. WATT. The question I am asking is, is there somebody out 

there who is doing that? I am not suggesting that it should appropriately be you. I am just asking: Is there somebody out there who 

is representing a large number of those people? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. But you may answer. 

Mr. PIRES. Those people who have filed, Congressman Watt, they 

are before Michael Lewis. In other words, they are in the system. 

I don’t——

Mr. WATT. Maybe I should be asking Mr. Lewis that question 

then. Who represents the most of those people who—the dispossessed class members, I will characterize them in that way, although, I don’t mean it. 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman Watt, I am not aware that anyone is 

representing them in the late claim process. 

Mr. WATT. All right. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Alabama is back from the hearing on the floor and is recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. Mr. Pires, you are aware of a lot of wild 

rumors that have been going around that the attorneys have made 

more money off this case than the farmers? 

Mr. PIRES. Yes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Let’s address that a minute. 

Mr. PIRES. Please. 

Mr. BACHUS. You know, clarifying the fee would put an end to 

those rumors. 

Mr. PIRES. Please. 

Mr. BACHUS. And I don’t know. I am not—are your fees based 

on a set amount, or upon the number of claimants you represent? 

Mr. PIRES. No, sir. It is very simple. It has all been public. We 

came forward and agreed to represent the class with an agreement 

that said, we will take none of your money. We were the only ones. 

Every other firm in the country had an agreement, with the exception of myself and Mr. Fraas, that wanted a percentage. 

So when it started, the rule I established was, if you want to 

help the Black farmers, you can’t take any of their money. You 

can’t base it on anything other than the judge will eventually——

Mr. BACHUS. What are they based on? 

214

Mr. PIRES. Let me finish, if I can. Your compensation will depend 

upon what the judge rules and grants you, period. You are going 

to have to take your chances and work for free. 

So, of the original eight firms, six of them had agreements that 

said they would get a percentage. They dropped and used ours. 

And everybody worked. And what happened is, we eventually, in 

the first round, after working 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and I don’t 

know, somewhere around——

Mr. BACHUS. My problem is, I have only got 5 minutes. I am just 

saying, are you—is your fee based on a set amount per hour, or is 

it based on the number of claimants? Or what——

Mr. PIRES. I am trying to answer. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, just can you? 

Mr. PIRES. The eight law firms, after 41⁄2 years, had $34 million 

worth of bills, hours and time and fees. 

Mr. BACHUS. So 34 million is what you all——

Mr. PIRES. We submitted it. The judge ruled. And to make a long 

story short, we received $14 million of that amount. When the case 

started, there was $1 million given to start the case, which was divided up. And after that period of time, the bills have been paid, 

you know, sporadically. 

Mr. BACHUS. What about this, would it make more——

Mr. PIRES. There has never been more in the entire history of the 

case than I know of than about $15 million, to pay all of the firms 

for 7 years of work. We averaged about $100 an hour. That is what 

we got. 

Mr. BACHUS. Let me ask you this. Would it make sense for the 

class counsel to make a public accounting? 

Mr. PIRES. It is all public. 

Mr. BACHUS. Of the attorney fees received in the case? 

Mr. PIRES. It is all public. 

Mr. BACHUS. I mean, to do a public accounting and release it? 

Mr. PIRES. It is in the docket. 

Mr. CHABOT. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? I 

want to make sure that I understand. You are saying that there 

were—there have been over $800 million at this point—that were 

paid out, is that right, and that the attorneys have made 15 million 

of the over 800 million. That is accurate? 

Mr. PIRES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. I just wanted to make sure that I understood. 

Mr. BACHUS. Would you object—do you object to a public accounting on the attorney fees? 

Mr. PIRES. It is public. 

Mr. BACHUS. But is it a public accounting, I mean, to make a 

public accounting? 

Mr. PIRES. It is all in court orders and it is all public, yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I would request that the staff get with the court so 

that we can verify those. 

Mr. BACHUS. Let me shift over. That is sort of a—let me tell you 

what really—one of the things that bothers me about this whole 

case, is that for every farmer that filed, there were probably twothirds more that didn’t file. 

215

Now, that indicates to me, if you got, you know, if—somebody is 

eligible, and they can receive money, and they don’t file, I have 

kind of got to believe that that is because they didn’t get notice. 

If you tell somebody there is money for you if you file, and you 

don’t file until late, that indicates to me that you didn’t know about 

it. Because, if somebody says there is money out there, you go up 

and you file. Yet, the judge in this case he said that a natural disaster was a reason for a late filing, or being hospitalized, but he 

actually, and I think if counsel agreed to this, consented to saying 

that if you didn’t receive notice, that wasn’t a reason for a late filing. 

Mr. PIRES. That is not true. 

Mr. BACHUS. That is not right? 

Mr. PIRES. No. 

Mr. BACHUS. I have been looking at this. I am just reading from 

what—it says, lack of notice is not deemed an acceptable reason by 

the arbitrator because the court made a legal finding that notice 

was sufficient. 

Did all argue against that and oppose that finding? 

Mr. PIRES. I don’t know which finding you are reading from. 

Mr. BACHUS. A finding in the Pigford case. 

Mr. PIRES. You mean from the claim form? 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, it says here—is that true? Did the court make 

a legal finding that notice was sufficient? 

Mr. PIRES. Yes. Notice was done by a professional company that 

does nothing but give notice. 

Mr. BACHUS. But, did you all oppose that? I mean, obviously for 

every person that filed, there were two-thirds more that didn’t. 

Mr. PIRES. There was a public hearing about notice, and the 

judge accepted notice as being adequate. 

Mr. BACHUS. Did you vigorously oppose that? 

Mr. PIRES. No, I thought notice was adequate. 

Mr. BACHUS. So you thought it was adequate too. 

Mr. PIRES. I thought it was excellent. 

Mr. BACHUS. Doesn’t the fact that now, after that thing was set, 

that two-thirds of the people have missed the filing deadline, does 

that cause you to maybe believe that in hindsight notice wasn’t sufficient? 

Mr. PIRES. No. Because I have been doing class actions a long 

time. And even my tobacco case which just settled, we had thousands of people who were getting checks and they did not file on 

time. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, but, you know. It——

Mr. PIRES. It is very common. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Would you wish 

an additional minute to ask——

Mr. BACHUS. I would like an additional minute. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Mr. BACHUS. You take, in Alabama, for 294 cases that were 

granted, 14,268 were rejected. And most all of those were because 

they filed too late. Does that bother you? I mean, does that——

Mr. PIRES. Alabama, there were 42 meetings of farmers in Alabama. And J.L. Chestnut is from Alabama. Alabama was probably 

216

the best serviced of all 50 States. I don’t think there is a Black 

farmer in Alabama who didn’t know about the case. 

Mr. BACHUS. So 14,268 out of 14,600, or——

Mr. PIRES. There were some Black farmers in Alabama who filed 

late. But I think there is a different reason for that. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, two-thirds of the applicants were denied entry 

into the claims process. Is that right? 

Mr. PIRES. Sixty-five thousand people who filed late. 

Mr. BACHUS. But their claims were never considered on the merits, though? 

Mr. PIRES. That is true. 

Mr. BACHUS. That is a tremendous number that never got their 

cases heard on the merits. 

Mr. PIRES. That is true. If you gave notice today, you would get 

another hundred thousand. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yeah, but I mean, that is a tremendous percentage. 

Mr. PIRES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BACHUS. That doesn’t cause you to question that maybe they 

didn’t get notice? 

Mr. PIRES. Fifty percent of the people who—Mr. Lewis testified 

that 50 percent of them that he reviewed admitted they knew 

about the case. So——

Mr. BACHUS. I guess, I will close with this. I am a lawyer. I finished near the top of my law school class. But I get these notices 

in these class action cases all of the time. I can’t figure out what 

they are talking about. 

Mr. PIRES. I think that is true. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. They agree on 

something. 

The distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Chabot. 

Mr. Pires, Attorney Pires, why did you oppose the motion to modify the Pigford suit filed by the Black farmers? 

Mr. PIRES. Filed by the Black farmers? Mr. Myart motions? I 

think Mr. Myart’s motions are irresponsible. He does not represent 

the Black farmers in this case. And his motions are irresponsible. 

That is why I opposed them. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Why did you file a motion to enjoin Black 

farmers from speaking on the Pigford v. Glickman settlement last 

week? 

Mr. PIRES. In that motion, it is public, Mr. Myart and others ridiculed the court, ridiculed the judicial system, made fun of Judge 

Friedman and the monitor and others. And I am sworn, as a member of the court, to defend that. 

I don’t think you get anywhere making fun of the judicial system. 

And anybody who comes forward and makes fun of Judge Friedman or anyone else, I am going to oppose that. That is my job. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Counsel, do you still oppose—would you oppose a modification of the time limits for the filing in this case at 

this point in time? 

Mr. PIRES. I don’t think the Pigford consent decree can be modified, Congressman Conyers. The Government has told us for years 

217

that they will not consent. So I don’t see how it can be accomplished. 

And I am trying, through legislation, to get what I got 8 years 

ago, which has helped. I don’t think it is worth repeated filings before Judge Friedman that are denied. I think it is a waste of time. 

I think the most important thing is to get to the heart of the problem and get relief from Congress. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is not quite the question that I asked 

which was, would you object to the court deciding or reconsidering 

that 65,000 claimants should be allowed to enter? 

Mr. PIRES. Would I oppose——

Mr. CONYERS. Would you object? Yes. Would you object if the 

court determined that this was such a serious miscarriage of the 

goals of the farmers across all of the years, and that they—that he 

decided that he would reconsider and create a new way for them 

to apply? 

Mr. PIRES. Judge Friedman does not have that authority. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am glad to hear you tell—this is the first 

time I had a lawyer explain the jurisdiction of a judge. I mean why 

couldn’t he? You are telling me that he could not extend this even 

if he wanted to? 

Mr. PIRES. I do not believe that Judge Friedman, on his own, 

without the Government’s consent, can change a consent decree 

and change the terms such that there is an extension of time to 

allow people in. I do not believe that is the law. That would be reversed, and it would be wasting years of time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Wait a minute. That, sir, is your hypothetical back 

to me. I didn’t tell you that Federal court would—that the Government wouldn’t join in with him. 

You know, Al, look, let’s face it. You seem to be resisting the 

65,000 people getting some relief. That is what it sounds to me. 

Mr. PIRES. It is the exact opposite, Congressman Conyers. I want 

to help them, but I want to help them in a meaningful way. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if it is the exact opposite, it doesn’t come 

across like that in this hearing. I hate to tell you that. 

Mr. PIRES. I understand. 

Mr. CONYERS. But, you know, something is amiss here. We have 

got Mr. Lewis sitting at your left, who could make plenty of sounds 

about what we could do for those 65,000. And I know we have a 

legislative remedy that I haven’t mentioned, but do you know how 

many more days are left in this Congress? It is—I think they said 

about a little more than a week, maybe less than 2 weeks. 

So on the for-real side, if the judge heard about this hearing, and 

heard you explain why he can’t do it by himself, that the Government wouldn’t join in, that it is too late and that you are working 

on other issues, to me these are people who would be claimants 

and would be part of the class action that you are bringing, sir. 

Mr. PIRES. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I mean, it would seem to me that you would want 

them in. 

Mr. PIRES. I do. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you have explained to me all of the reasons 

that they can’t come in. I am trying to——

218

Mr. PIRES. I said to file a motion before Judge Friedman, without 

the Government’s consent is just paper, and it is not going anywhere. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am glad you know this. Maybe——

Mr. PIRES. Because I have been doing it for 7 years. I think I 

have a pretty good idea of how to make the litigation move in a 

way that provides meaningful relief. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, look, I don’t want to tell you what you 

should be saying before the Committee. I presume you know what 

to say in front of the court. But, if I leave this hearing, and they 

ask me how does Pires and Lewis feel about the 65,000 black farmers, I am going to be strapped to explain this based on the answers 

and the comments that you have given me. 

I would like to yield to Mr. Lewis to see what he—what his feelings are on this subject. 

Mr. LEWIS. I don’t disagree with Mr. Pires, that if there were 

some way, outside of the context of the consent decree to provide 

relief to—we have been talking about 65,000, why not include the 

other 7,700 who missed the final deadline? So we are talking about 

72-73,000 people. 

All I would say to you, Congressman Conyers, is that there is—

what I have before me now is not the 65,000, but are the 21,000 

petitions for whom reconsideration requests have been filed. 

And I will, you know, I am marching through those as quickly 

as I can. Because one of the issues here is those folks are starting 

the claims process once I find that they are eligible to participate. 

So we are talking about, you know, a year or two of processing 

to—before they get some money. 

Mr. LEWIS. But what I have for you now——

Mr. CONYERS. You would like to see the decree modified to allow 

them to come in. 

Mr. LEWIS. Frankly I agree with Mr. Pires. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, I’m asking you. Forget about the class action 

lawyer. I can question him. What does Mr. Michael Lewis think? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think it would be wonderful if 72,000 people got a 

shot, as Congressman Scott said, to have their cases heard on the 

merits. I don’t believe that can happen within the context of the 

Pigford consent decree. That’s all I’m saying. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. All Members 

shall have 5 legislative days to provide any additional materials for 

the record. 

Mr. BACHUS. Could I have one additional question? 

Mr. CHABOT. Make it after this gentleman then. I was going to 

ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Scott to ask a question relative to taxes, and then I’ll follow up here. But then we’re going 

to wrap it up. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And first, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 

you again for calling the hearing. 

We’ve heard uncontested evidence that about 75 percent of the 

people who’ve had potential cases are not able to have their cases 

heard on the merits. And we—certainly I think the fair thing to do 

is to try to ascertain what can be done so that they can hear their 

cases on the merits. 

219

I had one kind of technical question. I’m not sure who can best 

answer it. We’ve heard questions that some of these payments constitute taxable income, and payments are made to IRS for those 

taxes. Is the payment to IRS taxable income, too, that might generate an additional tax check? Or is the check large enough to 

cover both the tax and the additional tax that’s generated? 

Ms. ROTH. Here’s the way it works, Congressman Scott. In a sim- ple Track A case where someone gets $50,000, the IRS—the 

$50,000 is paid in cash. And then $12,500, which is 25 percent of 

that amount, is wired to the claimant’s IRS account as partial pay- ment toward the taxes on the $50,000. However, our understanding 

is that the IRS has taken the position that that $12,500 is itself 

taxable income. And from my perspective, I think that’s going to 

create lots of problems down the line. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we need to look into that to see 

if that needs to be worked on, too. 

Mr. CHABOT. I agree. Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Scott. 

And, Mr. Bachus, if you could make this brief. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. I’m going to ask counsel, or anybody 

else that wants to answer this, and I have to say that, you know, 

I’m not—my understanding of civil rights law is probably not what 

it should be, but this similarly situated white farmer requirement 

that the claimant, in order to get a settlement, has got to find a 

similarly situated white farmer, that’s not normally the case, is it? 

Normally don’t you just prove that you’re discriminated against in 

a civil rights case? I mean, that’s not kind of the spirit of remedying discrimination, is it, in our civil rights law? Don’t you just 

prove you were discriminated against because of your color, and 

then you get recovered? Do you have to—in other cases do you have 

to go out and find somebody that was—the same thing happened 

to them and they were treated different? Mr. Haynie. 

Mr. HAYNIE. Yes. You know, the Government admitted to discrimination. And I think this boils down to black farmers having 

bad counsel, because how can your counsel agree to you having to 

go out and find similar-situated white farmers when he waives the 

discovery process? So basically your counsel is why you’re failing, 

because he has shut the door on you getting necessary information 

for you to prove your discrimination. 

Mr. BACHUS. You can’t subpoena that information? 

Mr. HAYNIE. No. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well—and did the USDA have the information—

that’s who might have some of the information, right? 

Mr. HAYNIE. They have all of the information. 

Mr. BACHUS. Did they have an absolute obligation to help find 

a similarly situated white——

Mr. HAYNIE. Once discovery was waived, they did not have to 

give black farmers this information. 

Mr. BACHUS. They could if they wanted to, but they didn’t have 

to? 

Mr. HAYNIE. That’s correct. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yeah. Well, I have—at least our counsel, the Republican counsel, has said that there could be maybe a legislative 

fix to this, and that’s whereby—and I just want, Counsel, maybe 

to see what you think. We could pass something saying that a speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Nov 01, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\092804\96110.000 HJUD1 PsN: 96110
220

cial master could be appointed to whom the USDA could be mandated to turn over all evidence relative to the Pigford settlement 

consent decree, and this special master, you know, he could protect 

the privacy of the white farmers, but still provide affidavits to individual black farmers required to identify similarly situated white 

farmers. And any farmer that was denied recovery on the basis 

that—you know, that he couldn’t find a similarly situated white 

farmer could resubmit their claims. What would you think about 

a legislative fix like that? 

Mr. PIRES. I think only the monitor knows how many of those 

cases there are that—— Mr. BACHUS. Well, that’s why we’d have a legislative fix. Then 

we’d find out. 

Mr. PIRES. But I think the idea is excellent. I think anything 

that Congress can do to allow more people to recover would be 

great. 

I did want to answer one of your earlier comments. My understanding of the law is that the only way a black farmer, a black 

person, in any case in any part of our workforce can prove discrimination is in comparison to a white or another person in the majority. So it is the law. In all of my cases, all five of my class action 

cases, the comparison to the white is the standard because the 

white is the majority. 

Mr. BACHUS. I guess I just don’t see how, you know, a black 

farmer is able to find—I mean, I just—particularly if the information—the USDA has that information, and this is sort of an adversarial relationship—— Mr. PIRES. Yes, it is. 

Mr. WATT. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. BACHUS. If you go to your adversary to get this information, 

and they don’t have to give it to you, that doesn’t sound like a 

game that you——

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. I would yield. 

Mr. WATT. I think the gentleman is finally finding out how difficult it is to prove a race discrimination claim in this country. On 

that point Mr. Pires is absolutely right. Discrimination is relative 

to white people in this country. And if you can’t prove that you 

were discriminated against, the definition of discrimination is that 

you were treated worse than. 

Mr. BACHUS. Oh, I understand that. Maybe I was—what I meant 

was in the normal case you can subpoena information as to what 

happened to everybody else similarly situated. This case they didn’t 

have the right to discover that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, they waived discovery. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, their attorney waived it. 

Mr. PIRES. Let me answer, because I teach discovery at Georgetown Law School. I know a lot about discovery, and I have learned 

the hard way that the best way for the defendant, the United 

States, which is the richest machine in the world, has the most 

lawyers, I worked there for 8 years, the best way to bring down the 

case is to get involved with discovery. And if the black farmers’ case had gotten involved with years and years of discovery, we 

never ever would have gotten out of it because that’s what’s wrong 

221

with a lot of the other cases. And I chose, just like I did in the 

AT&T case—I chose to have very, very limited discovery. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, I would put that they were under absolute obligation to supply that information, and that wasn’t in there. 

Mr. PIRES. To some extent, sir, they had it. To some extent they 

didn’t. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, but to some extent they did, and that’s a lot 

of ground. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Well, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. PIRES. You’re right. 

Mr. CHABOT. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming this 

afternoon. I want to also thank the other folks that took their time 

out to come here and listen to Congress in action. We are, I think 

on both sides, both the Democratic side and the Republican side, 

I think we’re very interested in trying to see if we could do anything to remedy this situation. 

Some suggestions have been made this afternoon. I had stated in 

my opening statement that it has also come to our attention that 

there were a number of other people that would have liked to have 

testified this afternoon. We allow four people. That’s been our policy in the Judiciary Committee to only have four people testify. So 

we were limited, and that’s the reason we weren’t able to add others. But I also indicated that our staff would work with the parties 

to pick a date to have another hearing and allow additional witnesses to testify. So that will be accomplished, we hope, in the near 

future. I can’t give an exact date because we just don’t know. 

But I want to once again thank everyone for coming, and if 

there’s no further business to come before the Committee, the Committee’s adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 6:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(223)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

CONSTITUTION

Good afternoon. I would like to thank everyone for being here today for this very 

important hearing. However, I feel that it is necessary to qualify that statement by 

saying it is unfortunate that we are here. We are here because, time after time, it 

appears that the wrong choices continue to be made by those in positions of authority. 

I trust that today’s hearing will enable this Subcommittee to examine those issues 

that are of the utmost importance and will enable us to make substantive recommendations to remedy the injustices that have occurred. 

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Arianne Callender, of the Environmental Working Group; Mr. John Boyd, with the National Black Farmers Association; Mr. Thomas Burrell; and Shirley Sherrod, with the Federation of Southern 

Cooperatives, for taking the time to provide us with information. 

Through these individuals, and others, it has come to this Subcommittee’s attention that a second hearing may be necessary. I’ve directed my staff to investigate 

the scheduling of a second hearing in the event one is needed in the near future. 

When slavery was ended in the United States, our government made a promise— a restitution of sorts—to the former slaves that they would be given 40 acres and 

a mule. While we can debate whether this allotment was intended to compensate 

the freed slaves for their involuntary service, what is clear is that this promise was 

intended to help freed slaves be independent economically and psychologically, as 

holders of private property rights. 

What also is clear is that the very government that made this promise, the ‘‘People’s Agency’’ established in 1862 under President Abraham Lincoln, has sabotaged 

it by creating conditions that make sovereign and economically-viable farm ownership extremely difficult. 

This is the backdrop against which we will examine the issues before us today. 

We are here to consider the administration of the 1999 Consent Decree, which resulted from the civil rights case of Pigford v. Glickman. 

The Consent Decree was developed to provide some monetary restitution to Black 

farmers who were victims of racial discrimination carried out by the United States 

Department of Agriculture, the very institution designated to assist them, in a swift 

and timely manner. 

Rather than help Black farmers, this Agency has been instrumental in causing 

their decline. Since the early 1900s, the number of Black farmers has decreased 

from nearly one million to fewer than 18,000. 

During this time, when Black farmers tried to seek justice by filing discrimination 

complaints with the USDA, their claims were either ignored or dismissed—most 

without an investigation. 

Ultimately, several of these Black farmers—all whose claims of racial discrimination had been disregarded by the USDA, filed a class action suit against the Agency. 

After extensive negotiations, a settlement was reached that established a ‘‘just’’ process to have all the discrimination claims heard in a timely manner. 

Yet, in an ironic twist, the process that was created to provide a forum for those 

whose claims had been shut out, has itself shut out nearly two-thirds of all who 

wanted to have their discrimination claims heard. Whether or not each of these 

claimants would have prevailed on the merits is not the issue before us. The process 

should have at least allowed them the opportunity to be heard. 

We cannot in good conscious allow a settlement that leaves out more potential 

claimants than it allows in to go unexamined or remain unresolved. 

224

All of the parties involved are responsible for developing a solution—whether it 

be modifying the Consent Decree, creating a subsequent Consent Decree, or some 

other process—to stop this destructive cycle from reoccurring. 

The first step in this process should be to provide the nearly 65,000 people who 

were denied entry into the process the opportunity to be heard. We will never be 

able to put the racially discriminatory practices that have and continue to occur 

within the USDA behind us until every one of these individuals has at least had 

the opportunity to be heard. 

This is just one of the many problems with the Consent Decree that my colleagues 

and I hear about nearly every day. 

It is my sincerest hope that this hearing will help us all get a better understanding of what precisely the problems are, what potential solutions there may be, 

and what we can do to ensure that the government never finds itself in a similar 

situation again. Too much has been lost and too much is at stake for Black farmers 

to just accept that the solution in 1999 has failed more people than it has helped. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank 

you, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ag Committee Chairman 

Goodlatte for your agreement to develop this hearing and for the open, bi-partisan 

and productive manner in which you and your staffs have proceeded to do so. I must 

also acknowledge the work and dedication to developing this hearing by Judiciary 

Committee Ranking Members Conyers, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler, 

and your staffs for your hard work and dedication to this effort, as well. And there 

are several other members and their staffs who have contributed to this effort, as 

well, including, Rep. Watt, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Towns, Rep. Butterfield, Rep. 

Bishop and Rep Baca. 

Of course, the hearing would not have been possible without the hard work and 

determination of all the representatives and advocates of Black farmers, too numerous to list, who have worked with us in developing this hearing over the last year. 

This has truly been a collaborative effort of all I have mentioned, and more. 

Ths hearing is about the Pigford Settlement. There remain many issues and problems at USDA and there are a number of efforts underway to address those problems. Among them are lawsuits and complaints by Hispanic, women and Native 

American farmers. There is also a new lawsuit pending by Black farmers alleging 

continuing discrimination since the period covered by Pigford, as well as continuing 

allegations and complaints of discrimination by Black USDA employees. I believe all 

of these civil rights issues warrant oversight by the Judiciary Committee and should 

be the focus of subsequent hearings. 

U.S. farm services programs date back to1862. Throughout their history, the programs have been laden with the pall of racial discrimination, in blatant as well as 

subtle ways. As the federal government has stepped up its loan and technical assistance programs to farmers in recognition of the growing capital and other needs of 

farmers to stay viable, Black farmer have been largely been left out due to discrimination and neglect. In the early 1900’s there were as many as 1 million Black-owned 

farms with about 16 million acres. Now there are an estimated 18,000 such farms 

with less than 3 million acres. Black farmers complained, but no systemic action 

was taken to remedy the situation. And to add insult to injury, in 1983, the civil 

rights office at USDA was closed down. Many complained about the rampant discriminatory practices, but others did not even bother, understandably expecting that 

nothing would be done to redress their complaints. 

The Judiciary Committee looked at the issue in 1984 through a hearing held in 

this Subcommittee which exposed the racially-discriminatory practices then in existence in USDA’s loan and assistance programs and its non-existent, civil rights complaints process. Unfortunately, no substantial remedial effort was undertaken by either the Administration or the Congress until Secretary Glickman, in response to 

the growing and persistent complaints of Black farmers and the disarray in complaint processing, ordered a moratorium on farm foreclosures and a series of reforms 

while pending complaint investigations. Yet, it took a lawsuit by Black farmers in 

1997 to bring about meaningful attention to the problem. 

Original estimates of the backlog of pending complaints was a few hundred. Over 

1,000 were discovered. Then there were estimated to be about over 2,000 farmers 

who had suffered discrimination by USDA. By the time the consent decree was entered into the estimates had risen to 4,000 to 5,000. Over 22,000 filed claims 

225

withing the initial deadline. However, as the deadline expired, the court found that 

claims were still streaming in. In fact, they were coming in so fast that the court 

extended the deadline and directed the Adjudicator to determine those entitled to 

be included due to extraordinary circumstances out of their control. To everyone’s 

astonishment, almost 66,000 claimants filed for consideration during the extension. 

Most of them have been considered by the Adjudicator, and curiously, only about 

3% have been allowed in. Moreover, another 7800 filed beyond the extended deadline. That adds up to almost 96,000 claimants. 

Mr. Chairman, frankly, I am concerned about the adequacy of a settlement process that leaves 70% of its claimants without a determination on the merits of their 

claim. I don’t know whether the problem is in the sufficiency of the original notice 

process or in the criteria applied to filers during the extended period, but I am not 

willing to accept that nearly 66,000 individuals who believe they have legitimate 

claims of racial discrimination knowingly ignored notice of the initial filing deadline 

and chose to submit their claims after that deadline for no good reason. 

I don’t know what percentage of the claimants can show entitlement to relief, but 

it is likely that some can. As long as 70% of those who believe they are entitled 

to recover under the settlement are prevented from having a determination on the 

merit of their claim, I don’t see how we can move forward with transforming the 

image and effectiveness of USDA in serving its minority customers fully. If this situation is allowed to stand, Black farmers will not only have been victimized by the 

discriminatory practices at USDA, but by the remedy process, as well. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses for any insights they may provide regarding my questions and concerns about the unfortunate 

state of affairs of the Pigford Settlement. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANFORD BISHOP

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. First I would like to thank the Chairman 

and Ranking member as well as the Subcommittee on the Constitution for taking 

the time this afternoon to hold this oversight hearing. I would also like to express 

my appreciation to the panel for taking time to be with us today. I believe that this 

hearing and your testimony is an important step in resolving these important 

issues. 

Pigford v. Glickman is a historic case and a historic decision. It is historic not 

only for the African American farmers who found themselves victims of an unjust 

system, it is historic for the thousands of African Americans today who are looking 

for equal treatment from the government that represents them. Racial bias is wrong 

and unconstitutional and it is sad to know that such practices were in place in our 

very government. But our court system ruled on the side of justice. USDA was 

wrong and the victims or their representatives should be paid. 

But the wheels of justice are slow. Yes, the Pigford case represents a moral victory for the black farmer. The burden of proof was high, yet the actions of Mr. 

Pigford led to the largest class action ever awarded by the USDA and the important 

admission of years of abuse was vindication for so many. We must not corrupt this 

victory by failing to do what is right, by failing to recognize the claims of so many 

based on what amounts to a technicality. 

In Georgia alone, the arbitrator under the court-mandated extension denied over 

3,000 black farmers. The extension was justly granted since many farmers’ attorneys failed to notify their clients of the original deadline for application. Out of the 

original 69,162 claims filed, over 55,000 were rejected only because they were filed 

late. This is not justice, this is an outrage. I am here to see that every legitimate 

claim receives full consideration. These are not people looking to abuse the system 

and make a quick dollar. These are hard working Americans who have earned our 

consideration 

In Georgia, farming is a proud tradition and I am honored to represent farmers 

of ever color and background. Today we should be focusing on agriculture, on ways 

to improve the less than perfect system and provide more opportunities in a field 

that Thomas Jefferson once called a ‘‘pillar’’ of American prosperity. But we are instead arguing over technicalities and an issue of justice that has not been properly 

resolved. 

The United States needs to close the door on this process and provide the relief 

to those who rightfully deserve compensation. I want to thank my colleagues here 

today for their interest in this settlement and look forward to action settling this 

issue.

226

ATTACHMENTS TO HEARING TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY WITNESS RANDI ILYSE ROTH


rap10001.eps
227


rap10002.eps
228


rap20001.eps
229


rap20002.eps
230


rap30001.eps
231


rap30002.eps
232


rap40001.eps
233


rap40002.eps
234


rap40003.eps
235


rap40004.eps
236


rap40005.eps
237


rap40006.eps
238


rap40007.eps
239


rap40008.eps
240


rap40009.eps
241


rap40010.eps
242


rap40011.eps
243


rap40012.eps
244


rap40013.eps
245


rap40014.eps
246


rap40015.eps
247


rap40016.eps
248


rap40017.eps
249


rap40018.eps
250


rap40019.eps
251


rap40020.eps
252


rap40021.eps
253


rap40022.eps
254


rap40023.eps
255


rap40024.eps
256


rap40025.eps
257


rap40026.eps
258


rap40027.eps
259


rap40028.eps
260


rap40029.eps
261


rap40030.eps
262


rap40031.eps
263


rap40032.eps
264


rap40033.eps
265


rap40034.eps
266


rap40035.eps
267


rap40036.eps
268


rap40037.eps
269


rap40038.eps
270


rap40039.eps
271


rap40040.eps
272


rap40041.eps
273


rap40042.eps
274


rap40043.eps
275


rap40044.eps
276


rap40045.eps
277


rap40046.eps
278


rap40047.eps
279


rap40048.eps
280


rap40039.eps
281


rap40040.eps
282


rap40041.eps
283


rap40042.eps
284


rap40043.eps
285


rap40044.eps
286


rap40045.eps
287


rap40046.eps
288


rap40047.eps
289


rap40048.eps
290


rap40049.eps
291


rap40050.eps
292


rap40051.eps
293


rap40052.eps
294


rap40053.eps
295


rap40054.eps
296


rap40055.eps
297


rap50001.eps
298


rap50002.eps
299


rap50003.eps
300


rap50004.eps
301


rap50005.eps
302


rap50006.eps
303


rap50007.eps
304


rap50008.eps
305


rap50009.eps
306


rap50010.eps
307


rap50011.eps
308


rap50012.eps
309


rap50013.eps
310


rap50014.eps
311


rap50015.eps
312


rap50016.eps
313


rap50017.eps
314


rap50018.eps
315


rap50019.eps
316


rap50020.eps
317


rap50021.eps
318


rap50022.eps
319


rap50023.eps
320


rap50024.eps
321


rap50025.eps
322


rap50026.eps
323


rap50027.eps
324


rap50028.eps
325


rap50029.eps
326


rap50030.eps
327


rap50031.eps
328


rap50032.eps
329


rap50033.eps
330


rap50034.eps
331


rap50035.eps
332


rap50036.eps
333


rap50037.eps
334


rap50038.eps
335


rap50039.eps
336


rap50040.eps
337


rap50041.eps
338


rap50042.eps
339


rap50043.eps
340


rap50044.eps
341


rap50045.eps
342


rap50046.eps
343


rap50047.eps
344


rap50048.eps
345


rap50049.eps
346


rap50050.eps
347


rap50051.eps
348


rap50052.eps
349


rap50053.eps
350


rap50054.eps
351


rap50055.eps
352


rap50056.eps
353


rap50057.eps
354


rap50058.eps
355


rap50059.eps
356


rap50060.eps
357


rap50061.eps
358


rap50062.eps
359


rap50063.eps
360


rap50064.eps
361


rap50065.eps
362


rap50066.eps
363


rap50067.eps
364


rap50068.eps
365


rap50069.eps
366


rap50070.eps
367


rap50071.eps
368


rap50072.eps
369


rap50073.eps
370


rap50074.eps
371


rap50075.eps
372


rap50076.eps
373


rap50077.eps
374


rap50078.eps
375


rap50079.eps
376


rap50080.eps
377


rap50081.eps
378


rap50082.eps
379


rap50083.eps
380


rap50084.eps
381


rap50085.eps
382


rap50086.eps
383


rap50087.eps
384


rap50088.eps
385


rap50089.eps
386


rap50090.eps
387


rap50091.eps
388


rap50092.eps
389


rap50093.eps
390


rap50094.eps
391


rap50095.eps
392


rap50096.eps
393


rap50097.eps
394


rap50098.eps
395


rap50099.eps
396


rap50100.eps
397


rap50101.eps
398


rap50102.eps
399


rap50103.eps
400


rap50104.eps
401


rap50105.eps
402


rap50106.eps
403


rap50107.eps
404


rap50108.eps
405


rap50109.eps
406


rap50110.eps
407

PREPARED STATEMENT AND ATTACHMENTS FROM ARIANNE CALLENDER


Cal0001.eps
408


Cal0002.eps
409


Cal0003.eps
410


Cal0004.eps
411


Cal0005.eps
412


Cal0006.eps
413

APPENDIX A


APA0001.eps
414


APA0002.eps
415


APA0003.eps
416


APA0004.eps
417


APA0005.eps
418


APA0006.eps
419

APPENDIX B


APB0001.eps
420


APB0002.eps
421


APB0003.eps
422


APB0004.eps
423


APB0005.eps
424


APB0006.eps
425


APB0007.eps
426


APB0008.eps
427


APB0009.eps
428


APB0010.eps
429


APB0011.eps
430


APB0012.eps
431


APB0013.eps
432


APB0014.eps
433


APB0015.eps
434


APB0016.eps
435


APB0017.eps
436


APB0018.eps
437


APB0019.eps
438


APB0020.eps
439


APB0021.eps
440


APB0022.eps
441


APB0023.eps
442


APB0024.eps
443


APB0025.eps
444


APB0026.eps
445


APB0027.eps
446


APB0028.eps
447


APB0029.eps
448


APB0030.eps
449


APB0031.eps
450


APB0032.eps
451


APB0033.eps
452


APB0034.eps
453


APB0035.eps
454


APB0036.eps
455


APB0037.eps
456


APB0038.eps
457


APB0039.eps
458


APB0040.eps
459


APB0041.eps
460

APPENDIX C


APC0001.eps
461


APC0002.eps
462


APC0003.eps
463


APC0004.eps
464


APC0005.eps
465


APC0006.eps
466


APC0007.eps
467


APC0008.eps
468


APC0009.eps
469


APC0010.eps
470


APC0011.eps
471


APC0012.eps
472


APC0013.eps
473


APC0014.eps
474


APC0015.eps
475


APC0016.eps
476


APC0017.eps
477


APC0018.eps
478


APC0019.eps
479


APC0020.eps
480


APC0021.eps
481


APC0022.eps
482


APC0023.eps
483


APC0024.eps
484

APPENDIX D


APD0001.eps
485


APD0002.eps
486


APD0003.eps
487


APD0004.eps
488


APD0005.eps
489


APD0006.eps
490


APD0007.eps
491


APD0008.eps
492


APD0009.eps
493


APD0010.eps
494


APD0011.eps
495


APD0012.eps
496


APD0013.eps
497


APD0014.eps
498


APD0015.eps
499


APD0016.eps
500


APD0017.eps
501


APD0018.eps
502


APD0019.eps
503


APD0020.eps
504


APD0021.eps
505


APD0022.eps
506


APD0023.eps
507


APD0024.eps
508


APD0025.eps
509


APD0026.eps
510


APD0027.eps
511


APD0028.eps
512


APD0029.eps
513


APD0030.eps
514


APD0031.eps
515


APD0032.eps
516


APD0033.eps
517


APD0034.eps
518


APD0035.eps
519


APD0036.eps
520


APD0037.eps
521


APD0038.eps
522


APD0039.eps
523


APD0040.eps
524


APD0041.eps
525


APD0042.eps
526


APD0043.eps
527


APD0044.eps
528


APD0045.eps
529


APD0046.eps
530


APD0047.eps
531


APD0048.eps
532


APD0049.eps
533


APD0050.eps
534


APD0051.eps
535


APD0052.eps
536


APD0053.eps
537


APD0054.eps
538


APD0055.eps
539


APD0056.eps
540


APD0057.eps
541


APD0058.eps
542


APD0059.eps
543


APD0060.eps
544


APD0061.eps
545


APD0062.eps
546


APD0063.eps
547


APD0064.eps
548


APD0065.eps
549

APPENDIX E


APE0001.eps
550


APE0002.eps
551


APE0003.eps
552


APE0004.eps
553


APE0005.eps
554


APE0006.eps
555


APE0007.eps
556


APE0008.eps
557


APE0009.eps
558


APE0010.eps
559


APE0011.eps
560


APE0012.eps
561


APE0013.eps
562


APE0014.eps
563


APE0015.eps
564


APE0016.eps
565


APE0017.eps
566


APE0018.eps
567


APE0019.eps
568


APE0020.eps
569


APE0021.eps
570


APE0022.eps
571


APE0023.eps
572


APE0024.eps
573


APE0025.eps
574


APE0026.eps
575


APE0027.eps
576


APE0028.eps
577


APE0029.eps
578


APE0030.eps
579

APPENDIX F


APF0001.eps
580


APF0002.eps
581


APF0003.eps
582


APF0004.eps
583


APF0005.eps
584


APF0006.eps
585

APPENDIX G


APG0001.eps
586


APG0002.eps
587


APG0003.eps
588


APG0004.eps
589


APG0005.eps
590


APG0006.eps
591


APG0007.eps
592


APG0008.eps
593


APG0009.eps
594


APG0010.eps
595


APG0011.eps
596


APG0012.eps
597


APG0013.eps
598


APG0014.eps
599


APG0015.eps
600


APG0016.eps
601


APG0017.eps
602


APG0018.eps
603


APG0019.eps
604


APG0020.eps
605


APG0021.eps
606


APG0022.eps
607


APG0023.eps
608


APG0024.eps
609


APG0025.eps
610


APG0026.eps
611


APG0027.eps
612

APPENDIX H


APH0001.eps
613

APPENDIX I


API0001.eps
614


API0002.eps
615


API0003.eps
616


API0004.eps
617


API0005.eps
618


API0006.eps
619


API0007.eps
620


API0008.eps
621


API0009.eps
622


API0010.eps
623


API0011.eps
624


API0012.eps
625


API0013.eps
626


API0014.eps
627


API0015.eps
628


API0016.eps
629


API0017.eps
630

APPENDIX J


APJ0001.eps
631


APJ0002.eps
632


APJ0003.eps
633


APJ0004.eps
634


APJ0005.eps
635


APJ0006.eps
636


APJ0007.eps
637


APJ0008.eps
638


APJ0009.eps
639


APJ0010.eps
640


APJ0011.eps
641


APJ0012.eps
642


APJ0013.eps
643


APJ0014.eps
644


APJ0015.eps
645


APJ0016.eps
646


APJ0017.eps
647


APJ0018.eps
648


APJ0019.eps
649


APJ0020.eps
650


APJ0021.eps
651


APJ0022.eps
652


APJ0023.eps
653


APJ0024.eps
654


APJ0025.eps
655


APJ0026.eps
656


APJ0027.eps
657


APJ0028.eps
658


APJ0029.eps
659


APJ0030.eps
660


APJ0031.eps
661


APJ0032.eps
662


APJ0033.eps
663


APJ0034.eps
664


APJ0035.eps
665


APJ0036.eps
666


APJ0037.eps
667


APJ0038.eps
668


APJ0039.eps
669


APJ0040.eps
670


APJ0041.eps
671


APJ0042.eps
672


APJ0043.eps
673


APJ0044.eps
674


APJ0045.eps
675


APJ0046.eps
676


APJ0047.eps
677


APJ0048.eps
678


APJ0049.eps
679


APJ0050.eps
680


APJ0051.eps
681


APJ0052.eps
682


APJ0053.eps
683


APJ0054.eps
684


APJ0055.eps
685


APJ0056.eps
686


APJ0057.eps
687


APJ0058.eps
688


APJ0059.eps
689


APJ0060.eps
690


APJ0061.eps
691


APJ0062.eps
692


APJ0063.eps
693


APJ0064.eps
694


APJ0065.eps
695


APJ0066.eps
696


APJ0067.eps
697


APJ0068.eps
698


APJ0069.eps
699


APJ0070.eps
700


APJ0071.eps
701


APJ0072.eps
702


APJ0073.eps
703


APJ0074.eps
704


APJ0075.eps
705


APJ0076.eps
706


APJ0077.eps
707


APJ0078.eps
708


APJ0079.eps
709


APJ0080.eps
710


APJ0081.eps
711


APJ0082.eps
712


APJ0083.eps
713


APJ0084.eps
714


APJ0085.eps
715


APJ0086.eps
716


APJ0087.eps
717


APJ0088.eps
718


APJ0089.eps
719


APJ0090.eps
720


APJ0091.eps
721


APJ0092.eps
722


APJ0093.eps
723


APJ0094.eps
724


APJ0095.eps
725


APJ0096.eps
726


APJ0097.eps
727


APJ0098.eps
728


APJ0099.eps
729


APJ0100.eps
730


APJ0101.eps
731


APJ0102.eps
732


APJ0103.eps
733


APJ0104.eps
734


APJ0105.eps
735


APJ0106.eps
736


APJ0107.eps
737


APJ0108.eps
738


APJ0109.eps
739


APJ0110.eps
740


APJ0111.eps
741


APJ0112.eps
742


APJ0113.eps
743


APJ0114.eps
744


APJ0115.eps
745


APJ0116.eps
746


APJ0117.eps
747


APJ0118.eps
748


APJ0119.eps
749


APJ0120.eps
750


APJ0121.eps
751


APJ0122.eps
752

APPENDIX K


APK0001.eps
753


APK0002.eps
754


APK0003.eps
755


APK0004.eps
756


APK0005.eps
757


APK0006.eps
758


APK0007.eps
759


APK0008.eps
760


APK0009.eps
761


APK0010.eps
762


APK0011.eps
763


APK0012.eps
764


APK0013.eps
765


APK0014.eps
766


APK0015.eps
767


APK0016.eps
768


APK0017.eps
769


APK0018.eps
770


APK0019.eps
771


APK0020.eps
772


APK0021.eps
773


APK0022.eps
774


APK0023.eps
775


APK0024.eps
776


APK0025.eps
777


APK0026.eps
778


APK0027.eps
779


APK0028.eps
780


APK0029.eps
781


APK0030.eps
782


APK0031.eps
783


APK0032.eps
784


APK0033.eps
785


APK0034.eps
786


APK0035.eps
787


APK0036.eps
788


APK0037.eps
789


APK0038.eps
790


APK0039.eps
791


APK0040.eps
792


APK0041.eps
793


APK0042.eps
794


APK0043.eps
795


APK0044.eps
796


APK0045.eps
797


APK0046.eps
798


APK0047.eps
799


APK0048.eps
800


APK0049.eps
801


APK0050.eps
802


APK0051.eps
803


APK0052.eps
804


APK0053.eps
805


APK0054.eps
806


APK0055.eps
807


APK0056.eps
808


APK0057.eps
809


APK0058.eps
810


APK0059.eps
811


APK0060.eps
812


APK0061.eps
813


APK0062.eps
814


APK0063.eps
815


APK0064.eps
816


APK0065.eps
817


APK0066.eps
818


APK0067.eps
819


APK0068.eps
820


APK0069.eps
821


APK0070.eps
822


APK0071.eps
823


APK0072.eps
824


APK0073.eps
825


APK0074.eps
826


APK0075.eps
827


APK0076.eps
828


APK0077.eps
829


APK0078.eps
830


APK0079.eps
831


APK0080.eps
832


APK0081.eps
833


APK0082.eps
834


APK0083.eps
835


APK0084.eps
836


APK0085.eps
837


APK0086.eps
838


APK0087.eps
839


APK0088.eps
840


APK0089.eps
841


APK0090.eps
842


APK0091.eps
843


APK0092.eps
844


APK0093.eps
845


APK0094.eps
846

APPENDIX L


APL0001.eps
847


APL0002.eps
848


APL0003.eps
849


APL0004.eps
850


APL0005.eps
851


APL0006.eps
852


APL0007.eps
853


APM0001.eps
854


APM0002.eps
855

APPENDIX 1


APN0001.eps
856


APN0002.eps
857


APN0003.eps
858


APN0004.eps
859


APN0005.eps
860


APN0006.eps
861


APN0007.eps
862


APN0008.eps
863


APN0009.eps
864


APN0010.eps
865


APN0011.eps
866


APN0012.eps
867


APN0013.eps
868


APN0014.eps
869


APN0015.eps
870


APN0016.eps
871


APN0017.eps
872


APN0018.eps
873


APN0019.eps
874


APN0020.eps
875


APN0021.eps
876


APN0022.eps
877


APN0023.eps
878


APN0024.eps
879


APN0025.eps
880


APN0026.eps
881


APN0027.eps
882


APN0028.eps
883


APN0029.eps
884


APN0030.eps
885


APN0031.eps
886


APN0032.eps
887


APN0033.eps
888


APN0034.eps
889


APN0035.eps
890


APN0036.eps
891


APN0037.eps
892


APN0038.eps
893


APN0039.eps
894


APN0040.eps
895


APN0041.eps
896


APN0042.eps
897


APN0043.eps
898


APN0044.eps
899


APN0045.eps
900


APN0046.eps
901


APN0047.eps
902


APN0048.eps
903


APN0049.eps
904


APN0050.eps
905


APN0051.eps
906


APN0052.eps
907


APN0053.eps
908


APN0054.eps
909


APN0055.eps
910


APN0056.eps
911


APN0057.eps
912


APN0058.eps
913


APN0059.eps
914


APN0060.eps
915


APN0061.eps
916


APN0062.eps
917


APN0063.eps
918


APN0064.eps
919


APN0065.eps
920


APN0066.eps
921

APPENDIX 2


APO0001.eps
922


APO0002.eps
923


APO0003.eps
924


APO0004.eps
925


APO0005.eps
926


APO0006.eps
927


APO0007.eps
928


APO0008.eps
929


APO0009.eps
930


APO0010.eps
931


APO0011.eps
932


APO0012.eps
933


APO0013.eps
934


APO0014.eps
935


APO0015.eps
936


APO0016.eps
937


APO0017.eps
938


APO0018.eps
939


APO0019.eps
940


APO0020.eps
941


APO0021.eps
942


APO0022.eps
943


APO0023.eps
944


APO0024.eps
945


APO0025.eps
946


APO0026.eps
947


APO0027.eps
948


APO0028.eps
949


APO0029.eps
950


APO0030.eps
951


APO0031.eps
952


APO0032.eps
953


APO0033.eps
954


APO0034.eps
955


APO0035.eps
956


APO0036.eps
957


APO0037.eps
958


APO0038.eps
959


APO0039.eps
960


APO0040.eps
961


APO0041.eps
962


APO0042.eps
963


APO0043.eps
964


APO0044.eps
965


APO0045.eps
966


APO0046.eps
967


APO0047.eps
968


APO0048.eps
969


APO0049.eps
970


APO0050.eps
971


APO0051.eps
972


APO0052.eps
973


APO0053.eps
974


APO0054.eps
975


APO0055.eps
976


APO0056.eps
977


APO0057.eps
978


APO0058.eps
979


APO0059.eps
980


APO0060.eps
981


APO0061.eps
982


APO0062.eps
983


APO0063.eps
984


APO0064.eps
985


APO0065.eps
986


APO0066.eps
987


APO0067.eps
988


APO0068.eps
989


APO0069.eps
990


APO0070.eps
991


APO0071.eps
992


APO0072.eps
993


APO0073.eps
994


APO0074.eps
995


APO0075.eps
996


APO0076.eps
997


APO0077.eps
998


APO0078.eps
999

APPENDIX 3


APP0001.eps
1000


APP0002.eps
1001


APP0003.eps
1002


APP0004.eps
1003


APP0005.eps
1004


APP0006.eps
1005


APP0007.eps
1006


APP0008.eps
1007


APP0009.eps
1008


APP0010.eps
1009


APP0011.eps
1010


APP0012.eps
1011


APP0013.eps
1012


APP0014.eps
1013


APP0015.eps
1014


APP0016.eps
1015


APP0017.eps
1016


APP0018.eps
1017


APP0019.eps
1018


APP0020.eps
1019


APP0021.eps
1020


APP0022.eps
1021


APP0023.eps
1022


APP0024.eps
1023


APP0025.eps
1024


APP0026.eps
1025


APP0027.eps
1026


APP0028.eps
1027


APP0029.eps
1028


APP0030.eps
1029


APP0031.eps
1030


APP0032.eps
1031


APP0033.eps
1032


APP0034.eps
1033


APP0035.eps
1034


APP0036.eps
1035

APPENDIX 4


APQ0001.eps
1036


APQ0002.eps
1037


APQ0003.eps
1038


APQ0004.eps
1039


APQ0005.eps
1040


APQ0006.eps
1041


APQ0007.eps
1042


APQ0008.eps
1043


APQ0009.eps
1044


APQ0010.eps
1045


APQ0011.eps
1046


APQ0012.eps
1047


APQ0013.eps
1048


APQ0014.eps
1049


APQ0015.eps
1050


APQ0016.eps
1051


APQ0017.eps
1052


APQ0018.eps
1053


APQ0019.eps
1054


APQ0020.eps
1055


APQ0021.eps
1056


APQ0022.eps
1057


APQ0023.eps
1058


APQ0024.eps
1059


APQ0025.eps
1060


APQ0026.eps
1061


APQ0027.eps
1062


APQ0028.eps
1063


APQ0029.eps
1064


APQ0030.eps
1065


APQ0031.eps
1066


APQ0032.eps
1067


APQ0033.eps
1068


APQ0034.eps
1069


APQ0035.eps
1070


APQ0036.eps
1071


APQ0037.eps
1072


APQ0038.eps
1073


APQ0039.eps
1074


APQ0040.eps
1075


APQ0041.eps
1076


APQ0042.eps
1077


APQ0043.eps
1078


APQ0044.eps
1079


APQ0045.eps
1080


APQ0046.eps
1081


APQ0047.eps
1082


APQ0048.eps
1083


APQ0049.eps
1084


APQ0050.eps
1085


APQ0051.eps
1086


APQ0052.eps
1087


APQ0053.eps
1088


APQ0054.eps
1089


APQ0055.eps
1090


APQ0056.eps
1091


APQ0057.eps
1092


APQ0058.eps
1093


APQ0059.eps
1094


APQ0060.eps
1095


APQ0061.eps
1096


APQ0062.eps
1097


APQ0063.eps
1098


APQ0064.eps
1099


APQ0065.eps
1100


APQ0066.eps
1101


APQ0067.eps
1102


APQ0068.eps
1103


APQ0069.eps
1104


APQ0070.eps
1105


APQ0071.eps
1106


APQ0072.eps
1107


APQ0073.eps
1108


APQ0074.eps
1109


APQ0075.eps
1110


APQ0076.eps
1111


APQ0077.eps
1112


APQ0078.eps
1113


APQ0079.eps
1114


APQ0080.eps
1115


APQ0081.eps
1116


APQ0082.eps
1117


APQ0083.eps
1118


APQ0084.eps
1119


APQ0085.eps
1120


APQ0086.eps
1121


APQ0087.eps
1122


APQ0088.eps
1123


APQ0089.eps
1124


APQ0090.eps
1125


APQ0091.eps
1126


APQ0092.eps
1127


APQ0093.eps
1128


APQ0094.eps
1129


APQ0095.eps
1130

APPENDIX 5


APR0001.eps
1131


APR0002.eps
1132


APR0003.eps
1133


APR0004.eps
1134


APR0005.eps
1135


APR0006.eps
1136


APR0007.eps
1137


APR0008.eps
1138


APR0009.eps
1139


APR0010.eps
1140


APR0011.eps
1141


APR0012.eps
1142


APR0013.eps
1143


APR0014.eps
1144


APR0015.eps
1145


APR0016.eps
1146


APR0017.eps
1147


APR0018.eps
1148


APR0019.eps
1149


APR0020.eps
1150


APR0021.eps
1151


APR0022.eps
1152


APR0023.eps
1153


APR0024.eps
1154


APR0025.eps
1155


APR0026.eps
1156


APR0027.eps
1157


APR0028.eps
1158


APR0029.eps
1159


APR0030.eps
1160


APR0031.eps
1161


APR0032.eps
1162


APR0033.eps
1163


APR0034.eps
1164


APR0035.eps
1165


APR0036.eps
1166


APR0037.eps
1167


APR0038.eps
1168


APR0039.eps
1169


APR0040.eps
1170


APR0041.eps
1171


APR0042.eps
1172


APR0043.eps
1173


APR0044.eps
1174


APR0045.eps
1175


APR0046.eps
1176


APR0047.eps
1177


APR0048.eps
1178


APR0049.eps
1179


APR0050.eps
1180

APPENDIX 6


APS0001.eps
1181


APS0002.eps
1182


APS0003.eps
1183


APS0004.eps
1184


APS0005.eps
1185


APS0006.eps
1186


APS0007.eps
1187


APS0008.eps
1188


APS0009.eps
1189


APS0010.eps
1190


APS0011.eps
1191


APS0012.eps
1192


APS0013.eps
1193


APS0014.eps
1194


APS0015.eps
1195


APS0016.eps
1196


APS0017.eps
1197


APS0018.eps
1198


APS0019.eps
1199


APS0020.eps
1200


APS0021.eps
1201


APS0022.eps
1202


APS0023.eps
1203


APS0024.eps
1204


APS0025.eps
1205


APS0026.eps
1206


APS0027.eps
1207


APS0028.eps
1208


APS0029.eps
1209


APS0030.eps
1210


APS0031.eps
1211


APS0032.eps
1212


APS0033.eps
1213


APS0034.eps
1214


APS0035.eps
1215


APS0036.eps
1216


APS0037.eps
1217


APS0038.eps
1218


APS0039.eps
1219


APS0040.eps
1220


APS0041.eps
1221


APS0042.eps
1222


APS0043.eps
1223


APS0044.eps
1224


APS0045.eps
1225


APS0046.eps
1226


APS0047.eps
1227


APS0048.eps
1228


APS0049.eps
1229


APS0050.eps
1230


APS0051.eps
1231


APS0052.eps
1232


APS0053.eps
1233


APS0054.eps
1234


APS0055.eps
1235


APS0056.eps
1236


APS0057.eps
1237


APS0058.eps
1238


APS0059.eps
1239


APS0060.eps
1240


APS0061.eps
1241


APS0062.eps
1242


APS0063.eps
1243


APS0064.eps
1244


APS0065.eps
1245


APS0066.eps
1246


APS0067.eps
1247


APS0068.eps
1248


APS0069.eps
1249


APS0070.eps
1250


APS0071.eps
1251


APS0072.eps
1252


APS0073.eps
1253


APS0074.eps
1254


APS0075.eps
1255


APS0076.eps
1256


APS0077.eps
1257


APS0078.eps
1258


APS0079.eps
1259


APS0080.eps
1260


APS0081.eps
1261


APS0082.eps
1262


APS0083.eps
1263


APS0084.eps
1264


APS0085.eps
1265


APS0086.eps
1266


APS0087.eps
1267


APS0088.eps
1268


APS0089.eps
1269


APS0090.eps
1270


APS0091.eps
1271


APS0092.eps
1272


APS0093.eps
1273


APS0094.eps
1274


APS0095.eps
1275


APS0096.eps
1276


APS0097.eps
1277


APS0098.eps
1278


APS0099.eps
1279


APS0100.eps
1280


APS0101.eps
1281


APS0102.eps
1282


APS0103.eps
1283


APS0104.eps
1284


APS0105.eps
1285


APS0106.eps
1286


APS0107.eps
1287


APS0108.eps
1288


APS0109.eps
1289


APS0110.eps
1290


APS0111.eps
1291


APS0112.eps
1292


APS0113.eps
1293


APS0114.eps
1294


APS0115.eps
1295


APS0116.eps
1296


APS0117.eps
1297


APS0118.eps
1298


APS0119.eps
1299


APS0120.eps
1300


APS0121.eps
1301


APS0122.eps
1302


APS0123.eps
1303


APS0124.eps
1304


APS0125.eps
1305


APS0126.eps
1306


APS0127.eps
1307


APS0128.eps
1308


APS0129.eps
1309


APS0130.eps
1310


APS0131.eps
1311


APS0132.eps
1312


APS0133.eps
1313


APS0134.eps
1314


APS0135.eps
1315


APS0136.eps
1316


APS0137.eps
1317


APS0138.eps
1318


APS0139.eps
1319


APS0140.eps
1320


APS0141.eps
1321


APS0142.eps
1322


APS0143.eps
1323


APS0144.eps
1324


APS0145.eps
1325


APS0146.eps
1326


APS0147.eps
1327


APS0148.eps
1328


APS0149.eps
1329


APS0150.eps
1330


APS0151.eps
1331


APS0152.eps
1332


APS0153.eps
1333


APS0154.eps
1334


APS0155.eps
1335


APS0156.eps
1336


APS0157.eps
1337


APS0158.eps
1338


APS0159.eps
1339


APS0160.eps
1340


APS0161.eps
1341


APS0162.eps
1342


APS0163.eps
1343


APS0164.eps
1344


APS0165.eps
1345


APS0166.eps
1346


APS0167.eps
1347


APS0168.eps
1348


APS0169.eps
1349


APS0170.eps
1350


APS0171.eps
1351


APS0172.eps
1352


APS0173.eps
1353


APS0174.eps
1354


APS0175.eps
1355


APS0176.eps
1356


APS0177.eps
1357


APS0178.eps
1358


APS0179.eps
1359


APS0180.eps
1360


APS0181.eps
1361


APS0182.eps
1362


APS0183.eps
1363


APS0184.eps
1364


APS0185.eps
1365


APS0186.eps
1366


APS0187.eps
1367


APS0188.eps
1368


APS0189.eps
1369


APS0190.eps
1370


APS0191.eps
1371


APS0192.eps
1372


APS0193.eps
1373


APS0194.eps
1374


APS0195.eps
1375


APS0196.eps
1376


APS0197.eps
1377


APS0198.eps
1378


APS0199.eps
1379


APS0200.eps
1380


APS0201.eps
1381


APS0202.eps
1382


APS0203.eps
1383


APS0204.eps
1384


APS0205.eps
1385


APS0206.eps
1386


APS0207.eps
1387


APS0208.eps
1388


APS0209.eps
1389


APS0210.eps
1390


APS0211.eps
1391


APS0212.eps
1392


APS0213.eps
1393


APS0214.eps
1394


APS0215.eps
1395


APS0216.eps
1396


APS0217.eps
1397


APS0218.eps
1398


APS0219.eps
1399


APS0220.eps
1400


APS0221.eps
1401


APS0222.eps
1402


APS0223.eps
1403


APS0224.eps
1404


APS0225.eps
1405


APS0226.eps
1406


APS0227.eps
1407


APS0228.eps
1408


APS0229.eps
1409


APS0230.eps
1410


APS0231.eps
1411


APS0232.eps
1412


APS0233.eps
1413


APS0234.eps
1414


APS0235.eps
1415


APS0236.eps
1416


APS0237.eps
1417


APS0238.eps
1418


APS0239.eps
1419


APS0240.eps
1420


APS0241.eps
1421


APS0242.eps
1422


APS0243.eps
1423


APS0244.eps
1424


APS0245.eps
1425


APS0246.eps
1426


APS0247.eps
1427


APS0248.eps
1428


APS0249.eps
1429


APS0250.eps
1430


APS0251.eps
1431


APS0252.eps
1432


APS0253.eps
1433


APS0254.eps
1434


APS0255.eps
1435


APS0256.eps
1436


APS0257.eps
1437


APS0258.eps
1438


APS0259.eps
1439


APS0260.eps
1440


APS0261.eps
1441


APS0262.eps
1442


APS0263.eps
1443


APS0264.eps
1444


APS0265.eps
1445


APS0266.eps
1446


APS0267.eps
1447


APS0268.eps
1448


APS0269.eps
1449


APS0270.eps
1450


APS0271.eps
1451


APS0272.eps
1452


APS0273.eps
1453


APS0274.eps
1454


APS0275.eps
1455


APS0276.eps
1456


APS0277.eps
1457


APS0278.eps
1458


APS0279.eps
1459


APS0280.eps
1460


APS0281.eps
1461


APS0282.eps
1462


APS0283.eps
1463


APS0284.eps
1464


APS0285.eps
1465


APS0286.eps
1466


APS0287.eps
1467


APS0288.eps
1468


APS0289.eps
1469


APS0290.eps
1470


APS0291.eps
1471


APS0292.eps
1472


APS0293.eps
1473


APS0294.eps
1474

APPENDIX 7


APT0001.eps
1475


APT0002.eps
1476


APT0003.eps
1477


APT0004.eps
1478


APT0005.eps
1479


APT0006.eps
1480


APT0007.eps
1481


APT0008.eps
1482


APT0009.eps
1483


APT0010.eps
1484


APT0011.eps
1485


APT0012.eps
1486


APT0013.eps
1487


APT0014.eps
1488


APT0015.eps
1489


APT0016.eps
1490


APT0017.eps
1491


APT0018.eps
1492


APT0019.eps
1493


APT0020.eps
1494


APT0021.eps
1495


APT0022.eps
1496


APT0023.eps
1497


APT0024.eps
1498


APT0025.eps
1499


APT0026.eps
1500


APT0027.eps
1501


APT0028.eps
1502


APT0029.eps
1503


APT0030.eps
1504


APT0031.eps
1505


APT0032.eps
1506


APT0033.eps
1507


APT0034.eps
1508


APT0035.eps
1509


APT0036.eps
1510


APT0037.eps
1511


APT0038.eps
1512


APT0039.eps
1513


APT0040.eps
1514


APT0041.eps
1515


APT0042.eps
1516


APT0043.eps
1517


APT0044.eps
1518


APT0045.eps
1519


APT0046.eps
1520


APT0047.eps
1521


APT0048.eps
1522


APT0049.eps
1523


APT0050.eps
1524


APT0051.eps
1525


APT0052.eps
1526


APT0053.eps
1527


APT0054.eps
1528


APT0055.eps
1529


APT0056.eps
1530


APT0057.eps
1531


APT0058.eps
1532


APT0059.eps
1533


APT0060.eps
1534


APT0061.eps
1535


APT0062.eps
1536


APT0063.eps
1537


APT0064.eps
1538


APT0065.eps
1539


APT0066.eps
1540


APT0067.eps
1541


APT0068.eps
1542


APT0069.eps
1543


APT0070.eps
1544


APT0071.eps
1545


APT0072.eps
1546


APT0073.eps
1547


APT0074.eps
1548


APT0075.eps
1549


APT0076.eps
1550


APT0077.eps
1551


APT0078.eps
1552


APT0079.eps
1553


APT0080.eps
1554


APT0081.eps
1555


APT0082.eps
1556


APT0083.eps
1557


APT0084.eps
1558


APT0085.eps
1559


APT0086.eps
1560


APT0087.eps
1561


APT0088.eps
1562


APT0089.eps
1563


APT0090.eps
1564


APT0091.eps
1565


APT0092.eps
1566


APT0093.eps
1567


APT0094.eps
1568


APT0095.eps
1569


APT0096.eps
1570


APT0097.eps
1571


APT0098.eps
1572


APT0099.eps
1573


APT0100.eps
1574

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS BURRELL


burr1.eps
1575


burr2.eps
1576


burr3.eps
1577


burr4.eps
1578


burr5.eps
1579


burr6.eps
1580


burr7.eps
1581


burr8.eps
1582


burr9.eps
1583


burr10.eps
1584


burr11.eps
1585


burr12.eps
1586


burr13.eps
1587


burr14.eps
1588


burr15.eps
1589

LETTER FROM THE FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN COOPERATIVES SUBMITTED BY

CHAIRMAN CHABOT


coops1.eps
1590


coops2.eps
1591


coops3.eps
1592


coops4.eps
1593


coops5.eps
1594

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT FROM WITNESS MICHAEL K. LEWIS


lewis1.eps
1595


lewis2.eps
1596


lewis3.eps
1597


lewis4.eps
1598


lewis5.eps
1599


lewis6.eps
1600


lewis7.eps
1601


lewis8.eps
1602


lewis9.eps
1603


lewis10.eps
1604


lewis11.eps
1605


lewis12.eps
1606


lewis13.eps
1607


lewis14.eps
1608


lewis15.eps
1609


lewis16.eps
1610


lewis17.eps
1611


lewis18.eps
1612


lewis19.eps
1613


lewis20.eps
1614


lewis21.eps
1615


lewis22.eps
1616


lewis23.eps
1617


lewis24.eps
1618


lewis25.eps
1619


lewis26.eps
1620


lewis27.eps
1621


lewis28.eps
1622


lewis29.eps
1623


lewis30.eps
1624


lewis31.eps
1625


lewis32.eps
1626


lewis33.eps
1627


lewis34.eps
1628


lewis35.eps
1629


lewis36.eps
1630


lewis37.eps
1631


lewis38.eps
1632


lewis39.eps
1633


lewis40.eps
1634


lewis41.eps
1635


lewis42.eps
1636


lewis43.eps
1637


lewis44.eps
1638


lewis45.eps
1639


lewis46.eps
1640


lewis47.eps
1641


lewis48.eps
1642


lewis49.eps
1643


lewis50.eps
1644


lewis51.eps
1645


lewis52.eps
1646


lewis53.eps
1647


lewis54.eps
1648


lewis55.eps
1649


lewis56.eps
1650


lewis57.eps
1651


lewis58.eps
1652


lewis59.eps
1653


lewis60.eps
1654


lewis61.eps
1655


lewis62.eps
1656

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE LUCAS


lucas1.eps
1657


lucas2.eps
1658


lucas3.eps
1659


lucas4.eps
1660


lucas5.eps
1661


lucas6.eps
1662

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT FROM WITNESS ALEXANDER PIRES


pires1.eps
1663


pires2.eps
1664


pires3.eps
1665


pires4.eps
1666


pires5.eps
1667


pires6.eps
1668


pires7.eps
1669


pires8.eps
1670

Æ


pires9.eps