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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–172 PDF 2009

MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE USDA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 14, 2008

Serial No. 110–137

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

——— ———

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania,

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 14, 2008 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Boyd, John, president, National Black Farmers Association; Lupe Garcia,

president, Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers of America, Inc.; Phil

Givens, president, Phil Givens Co., representative of Native American

Farmers; Lawrence Lucas, president, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees; and Lesa Donnelly, advisor for Women’s Issues, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees .......................................................................... 11

Boyd, John ................................................................................................. 11

Donnelly, Lesa ........................................................................................... 61

Garcia, Lupe .............................................................................................. 19

Givens, Phil ................................................................................................ 35

Lucas, Lawrence ........................................................................................ 54

McKay, Margo, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department

of Agriculture; Phyllis Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of

Agriculture; and Lisa Shames, Director, Agriculture and Food Safety,

U.S. Government Accountability Office ...................................................... 79

Fong, Phyllis .............................................................................................. 92

McKay, Margo ........................................................................................... 79

Shames, Lisa .............................................................................................. 104

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bishop, Hon. Sanford D., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Georgia, prepared statement of ..................................................... 7

Boyd, John, president, National Black Farmers Association, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 14

Butterfield, Hon. G.K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 74

Donnelly, Lesa, advisor for Women’s Issues, USDA Coalition of Minority

Employees, prepared statement of .............................................................. 63

Fong, Phyllis, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 94

Garcia, Lupe, president, Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers of America,

Inc., prepared statement of .......................................................................... 21

Givens, Phil, president, Phil Givens Co., representative of Native American Farmers, prepared statement of .......................................................... 37

Lucas, Lawrence, president, USDA Coalition of Minority Employees:

Memorandum dated November 15, 2006 ................................................. 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56

McKay, Margo, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, prepared statement of ......................................................... 83

Shames, Lisa, Director, Agriculture and Food Safety, U.S. Government

Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............................................. 106

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 3

(1)

MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE

USDA

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:09 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edolphus Towns (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Towns and Bilbray.

Also present: Representatives Bishop and Butterfield.

Staff present: Michael McCarthy, staff director; William Jusino,

professional staff member; Velvet Johnson, counsel; Kwane Drabo,

clerk; Jim Moore, minority counsel; and Benjamin Chance and

Chris Espinoza, minority professional staff members.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me begin by first apologizing for the lateness, because we had a little conflict in that the other hearing ran a little

longer than they had expected, and so it delayed our hearing, as

well.

Also, I understand that we have some votes coming up, so we

wanted to get started at least and get as far as possible before the

votes, and then return back after the votes.

We have other Members that will be joining us shortly.

Let me begin by first thanking the witnesses for coming today.

The hearing will come to order.

We are here to consider an issue that is a cause for great alarm:

the all-too-familiar issues of discrimination within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Discrimination in the delivery of services to

minorities and women farmers and treatment of minority employees at USDA has been a longstanding problem, confirmed by official investigations and class action settlements. What was once envisioned by President Lincoln as the people’s department, many

now call the last plantation, and statistics seem to support this,

and that is very troubling.

For too long we have heard from minority farmers and workers

at USDA that they have been shut out of Government loans and

job promotions for decades because of the color of their skin. In

fact, these problems have persisted for so long that Congress took

action to reorganize USDA to emphasize the importance of Civil

Rights.

The 2002 farm bill established a position of Assistant Secretary

of Civil Rights to provide overall leadership and coordination of all

2

Civil Rights programs across the Department of Agriculture.

Today, 5 years later, we examine whether that reform has been effective at eliminating discrimination at USDA. Unfortunately, the

answer to that question appears to be no.

Although Congress gave the Office of Civil Rights the resources,

the autonomy, and authority to adequately help under-served farmers and minority employees, it remains unclear whether there has

been any improvement in management of USDA Civil Rights programs. Serious questions have been raised in the past year regarding how USDA tracks, processes, and remedies complaints brought

by farmers and its own employees.

Today we will hear from members of the farming community as

they tell us the difficulties that they personally experience at

USDA. We will also hear from representatives of USDA employees.

These personal stories are supported by Government audit findings. Last year the USDA Inspector General reported that employment complaints were not timely processed, there were no internal

controls to ensure the accuracy and reliability of complaint data,

and that complaint data in the Department’s computer files did not

match up with the physical cases. GAO also reports that lengthy

backlogs persist and that the USDA’s statistics are not reliable.

Furthermore, there have been a series of incidents in the past

few months that cause me to question the Department’s commitment to safeguarding Civil Rights.

In September 2007, an e-mail circulated among employees of the

Farm Service Agency criticizing congressional action to reopen a

landmark Civil Rights case against USDA for discrimination and

providing farm loans to Black farmers. More recently GAO ran into

several roadblocks in gaining access to documents, and at one

point, were even kicked out of the building as they tried to interview employees.

I want to send a very, very clear message that stonewalling a

congressional investigation is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Let me repeat: stonewalling a congressional investigation is

unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Very little has changed in the last 5 years, despite a growing bureaucracy whose top priority is to address these issues. It is quite

disturbing that we still regularly hear about discriminatory treatment or delay in resolving complaints. It seems to be that the missing link here seems to be one of accountability, from the highest

level of management to the county supervisor in the field who fails

to adequately service an African American farmer’s loan.

We have been talking about these issues for long, long enough.

It is time to do something about them. It is my hope that we can

work together to come up with a better strategy to ensuring that

every client and every employee at USDA is treated fairly. This is

why we have come together today, to put an end to this ugly, unfair practice.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. TOWNS. I now stop and I recognize the ranking member of

the committee, Mr. Bilbray from the great State of California.

Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

having this hearing. I want to thank the panel for coming forward.

Mr. Chairman, I think your opening statement speaks for both

of us, and I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

We are delighted this afternoon that we have with us a gentleman who has a District that has a tremendous amount of agriculture in it, and, of course, we would like to ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to sit with the committee today and to be

able to give testimony and to be able to ask questions, Mr. Bishop

from the State of Georgia.

Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to take this opportunity to salute Chairman

Towns for his leadership on the issue of Civil Rights within USDA

and to commend his continued efforts to seek equity and justice,

not just for African American farmers, but for minority farmers everywhere.

Chairman Towns’ continued diligence and leadership on this

issue dates back to 1983, when he arrived first in Washington as

a young Congressman from Brooklyn. And, it serves as a tribute

to his character and to his unfailing commitment to life and to protect those in our society who, by no fault of their own, continue to

be subjected to the twin evils of bigotry and racism.

This hearing comes at a crucial point on the legislative calendar,

given the recent completion and the imminent approval of a new

farm bill by the House of Representatives and the reopening of the

Pigford case and the other initiatives that are aimed at preserving

and expanding the number of small farms owned by minorities.

Many of us in attendance here today are disappointed that, in

2008 we again find ourselves in another congressional oversight

hearing on the shortcomings of the Department of Agriculture. Our

USDA has yet to fully execute the Federal statutes and regulations

governing the administration of our Nation’s agriculture programs

in a fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory manner. Most disturbing appears to be the institutionalization of discriminatory practices, which at this point seem firmly rooted throughout the Department in both its external and internal operations and program

management.

Ironically, Abraham Lincoln, who is probably best remembered

as the President who saved the Union and freed slaves, was also,

the very same individual who had the vision, the insight, and the

wisdom to found the Department of Agriculture. In 1862, when

President Lincoln founded the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he

referred to his new creation as the People’s Department. In Lincoln’s day, 90 percent of Americans were farmers, and all needed

good seed and good information to grow their crops. These farmers

included the newly freed slaves.

African American farmers reached their peak in terms of land

ownership in 1910 when 218,000 African American farmers owned

around 15 million of the 873 million acres that were being farmed

6

nationwide. Since 1910, while the total number of individual farms

nationwide has decreased, the number of acres being farmed in the

United States actually has grown slightly by about 6 percent. Despite this growth in farmed acreage nationwide, African American

owned or controlled landholdings have decreased significantly over

time. By 1978, African American owned or controlled landholdings

fell to 2.4 million acres, and in 1999 2.3 million acres of land.

Today that number stands at less than 2 million acres of the almost 931 million acres currently being farmed in the United

States.

A 1982 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights charged

that systematic racism carried out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was one of the major causes of land loss among African

American farmers. The Commission found that USDA employees

routinely denied African American farmers credit and information

about USDA programs that were readily accessible to White farmers. The Commission found the situation so dire they projected that

if nothing were done, African American owned farms would cease

to exist by the year 2000.

In 1990 a report issued by the Congress’ House Committee on

Government Operations, Mr. Chairman, this very committee in a

previous life, concluded that little had changed for the African

American farmer since the 1982 report had been published. By systematically denying or delaying loans essential to financing their

crops and withholding other Federal farm support on a widespread

basis, USDA employees forced African American farmers to lose

their land, their livelihoods, and their communities.

Central to this issue is the manner in which the Farm Service

Agency executes and administers its programmatic responsibilities

in conjunction with the local county advisory committees. This is

where the rubber meets the road, and all too often it serves as the

link to many of the front line issues that are facing African American farmers today.

Even as we sit here today, my staff is working with constituents

facing potential discriminatory actions within a couple of FSA offices in my District. Critically important to resolving this issue

means expanding and strengthening the administrative and management tools in place at the Department to provide the broadest

and most effective level of management accountability possible.

So, here we are again today raising the same concerns, all in the

name of asking, if not admonishing, the Department of Agriculture

to do what is fair and what is right.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your subcommittee for again

taking up this important issue today. It is my fervent hope that we

may 1 day see a Department of Agriculture, which operates and

administers its programs and activities as its founder, President

Lincoln, would have hoped and expected as the People’s Department, not just for some of the people, but for all of the people in

these United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate. I look

forward to the testimony of the witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., follows:]

7

8

9

10

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

Let me say to the witnesses we swear in all of our witnesses

here. It is a longstanding policy. So if you would, stand and raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOWNS. Let the record reflect that all of them answered in

the affirmative.

Let me introduce the panel.

Mr. John Boyd is president of the National Black Farmers Association. Mr. Boyd is a staunch advocate for African American farmers throughout the country and has worked tirelessly to help eradicate discrimination within the USDA system.

Welcome.

Mr. Garcia is a third generation farmer and the lead plaintiff in

a class action brought on behalf of Hispanic farmers and ranchers

against USDA. He is also president of the Hispanic Farmers and

Ranchers of America.

Welcome, Mr. Lupe Garcia.

Also I would like to introduce Mr. Phil Givens. Mr. Givens is a

Native American and African American farmer from Oklahoma.

Mr. Givens has farmed for over 26 years and represents farmers

from 8 different Indian tribes located throughout the midwest.

Welcome, Mr. Givens.

Mr. Lucas, Lawrence Lucas, is president of the USDA Coalition

of Minority Employees, with over 35 chapters throughout the country. The Coalition works to remedy representation in the USDA

work force by advocating equal employment and promotion opportunities for all employees.

Welcome, Mr. Lucas.

Also we have Lesa Donnelly, who is the advisor for Women’s

Issues for the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees. She represents employees in administrative proceedings with the Department.

Welcome, Ms. Donnelly.

Let me begin with you, Mr. Boyd, and we will come right down

the line.

Let me just say this: we have a light, which means that you are

allowed 5 minutes to make a statement. Then, the yellow light will

come on and that will be like caution you to let you know that you

should sum up, and then immediately after the yellow light means

a red light that means you should shut up. [Laughter.]

Let’s move right down the line.

11

STATEMENTS OF JOHN BOYD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BLACK

FARMERS ASSOCIATION; LUPE GARCIA, PRESIDENT, HISPANIC FARMERS AND RANCHERS OF AMERICA, INC.; PHIL

GIVENS, PRESIDENT, PHIL GIVENS CO., REPRESENTATIVE

OF NATIVE AMERICAN FARMERS; LAWRENCE LUCAS, PRESIDENT, USDA COALITION OF MINORITY EMPLOYEES; AND

LESA DONNELLY, ADVISOR FOR WOMEN’S ISSUES, USDA COALITION OF MINORITY EMPLOYEES

STATEMENT OF JOHN BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate

the opportunity today to testify before this distinguished committee. To the ranking member and Congressman Bishop, we are old

friends here.

This has been such a long, long plight, and we also would like

to recognize some of the other congressional Members that have

been supporting the Black farmers and minority farmers around

the country: Congressman Scott; Senator Obama, who sponsored

legislation in the Senate for us, and other distinguished Members

that have been working on this issue for such a long, long time.

Mr. Chairman, you stole my testimony. So many of the things

that I wanted to say, I won’t read from my testimony. I would like

to speak from the heart for just a few minutes about the plight of

the Black farmers.

We have been losing land at an enormous rate, three times

greater rate than any other race of people in this country. In my

own personal opinion, I feel that Black farmers have been shut out

of our USDA lending programs, i.e., the U.S. farm subsidy program, where the top 10 percent of recipients in the U.S. farm subsidy program receive over $1 million, and Black farmers on average

in this country receive less than $200. This is something that we

fought diligently to correct in the past three farm bills.

You asked a question earlier during your testimony: is the Office

of Civil Rights working? Well, I came today to testify, to tell you,

that it is absolutely not working. The Office of Civil Rights is, in

my own opinion, in total disarray and totally dysfunctional to serve

not just Black farmers, but small farmers around the country.

We hear that there are complaint inquiries that may be shredded

or may not be processed, so on and so forth. Mr. Chairman, these

are farmers’ lives. I think that is where we lose the connection with

the U.S. Department of Agriculture when we make inquiries about

these complaints. These are just not complaints; these are individuals’ lives that they are refusing to process, that have been sitting

there with dust on them. There have been complaints after complaints, report after report, the Blue Ribbon Task Force Report, the

Civil Rights Action Team Report under Secretary Glickman, the

Office of Civil Rights, where myself and Lucas and some of these

other advocates lobbied for to get the Assistant Secretary of Administration.

We were so excited about that, and we thought we were heading

in the right direction, but it appears, Mr. Chairman, that we do not

have the right person with the right amount of gumption to take

on the old system there at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

What I mean by that is, after they get called in to meetings, they

12

may come to the Department with the right intentions, but they

leave there with a zero, because nothing seems to happen with the

complaints and the settlement.

You spoke earlier about the incident with the 30-year FSA employee. How can you have a 30-year veteran? Mr. Chairman, I

spent 8 years, 8 long years, lobbying to get that one piece of legislation into the farm bill. When I heard about this particular e-mail

that was sent to me by an anonymous person within Farm Service

Agency saying that there were others out there, not political appointees, but career bureaucrats spending the taxpayers’ money to

lobby against bringing relief to Black farmers around the country,

many who can’t read and write and express themselves the way I

am able to express myself to this committee—how dare those kinds

of employees, Mr. Chairman, that are supposed to be giving a hand

up to Black farmers, that are the very employees working to make

sure that we become extinct. That is a disgrace to this Congress;

it is a disgrace to this country.

We appreciate your letter of inquiry to the Secretary questioning

that issue.

Then we had the GAO, who was not even allowed to question

those who found fault in the system. Here, again, we have the

USDA, with such arrogance, with the guidance of Office of General

Counsel. Myself and Lucas and Ms. Gray and others have fought

for such a long time to get the Office of General Counsel to stop

dictating policy to the Secretary. The Secretary should be held accountable for these instances at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As I close in my testimony, Black farmers need justice. We are

getting these calls every day. We appreciate you, Mr. Chairman,

and Congressman Bishop for helping make sure that the Black

farmers will stay a part of the farm bill, but we need you to go one

step further and hold those individuals accountable so that Black

farmers will be able to walk into a USDA office in their local counties and be treated with dignity and respect and be treated like a

man. Because, I am going to tell you first-hand, the Department of

Agriculture almost made me less than a man.

My great-great grandfather was a slave breeder. My grandfather

was a farmer. My daddy was a farmer. They were able to hold on

to the same farm that they passed on to me four generations later,

and the Government was ready to foreclose on me. I felt less than

a man that the person from the brink of slavery was able to farm

and feed 12 children, and I only had 1 child, and the Government

was ready to foreclose on me.

Thank God that we had good Members like yourself and Congressman Bishop and Secretary Glickman who put a moratorium

on farm foreclosures, and that moratorium came 2 days before the

sale date of my farm. I was able to hold on.

I was one that beat the statistics, but what happened to all of

the other Black farmers out in Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia? They face retaliation today, because the same person that discriminated against them in the first place is the same person that

we have to go back to to ask to participate in the U.S. farm subsidy

program, to participate in the farm lending programs.

13

So, we are here today to ask this committee to take this testimony that you are going to hear from myself and other advocates

today and go one step further. Hold those accountable who think

they are not—or they think they are above this committee and

above law.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity and I look

forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd, for your testimony.

Mr. Garcia.

STATEMENT OF LUPE GARCIA

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Chairman Towns and Ranking Member

Bilbray and members of the distinguished subcommittee. I am

Lupe Garcia, and everybody knows me by Lupe. I come from Dona

Ana County. I am a third generation farmer. I represent the Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers of America. I am the lead plaintiff in

a class action brought about for the Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

My family and myself own two farms, total of 626 acres. I served

the United States as a visiting professor with Oregon State University and with U.S. Mission in Central and South America. I came

back to farm with my brother and father, and this is where the discrimination occurred to my family in the 1980’s. Our case seeks

remedy of massive and admitted discrimination against Hispanic

farmers who are denied equal access to USDA farm credit and noncredit farm benefit programs. When they complain to USDA about

such denials; USDA refuses to process and investigate their complaints in violation of the ECOA and Administrative Procedure Act.

Since 1983, USDA denied every loan application we submitted.

We encountered difficulties that normally affect farming. USDA denied us further credit, denied us disaster relief, denied us debt

servicing. As a result, we slowly and systemically drained our operating capital. We were operating out of, as you say, out of cuff.

In 1984 a flood destroyed 60 acres of our chiles and our entire

cotton crop. The USDA denied our application for disaster relief,

because we were bad farmers, according to some of the committee

men.

In 1986, USDA loan specialists recommended to both USDA

county loan officer and USDA Chief of Agriculture Loans of the

State of New Mexico that our land be divided among me and my

father and brother to increase the amount that we would be able

to borrow. Not only did USDA reject our loan application, but it

never informed us of this option to divide our farm land.

In 1988 USDA denied our application for disaster relief after another flood destroyed 550 acres of crops. When we appealed to the

county office, USDA literally laughed in our faces, denied our appeal for relief.

In 1988 we applied for primary loan servicing. USDA sat on the

application for 2 years before denying it.

And, in the 1990’s our farming operation continued to be slowly

starved of the operating capital. In 1994, USDA, again, refused to

work with us on loan restructuring. Later that year, we appealed

to the USDA’s Adverse Decision NAD, and on an appeal the hearing officer ruled in our favor.

In spite of our victory, USDA refused to follow the NAD decision.

We never received any loan servicing. Later, we attended a mediation session where the senior USDA official concluded that he

would not approve anything that involved the Garcias.

In 1998, we sought after farm buyers who were willing to purchase some of our land, which would enable us to service some of

20

the delinquent debts and refinance the remaining debt. Again,

USDA denied this opportunity.

In the end we lost our farms. I will sum it up, cut it short. I will

talk from the heart.

This kind of thing is still going on. I do outreach for USDA

through the Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers. We need servicing for

Hispanic farmers, minority farmers in New Mexico and El Paso

County, TX. We are not getting it. We have been promised low-doc

loans and all types of loans, and the percentage of Hispanic farmers that get the loans are less than 2 percent, even though we are

helping the people with documentation of the loan applications. So

there is a definite discrimination.

We have heard of documents being destroyed in our Las Cruces

office. This occurred this past year and just finished about 2

months ago. This was going on. They were destroying documents

in that office. This needs to be investigated by the GAO.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you very much.

Mr. GARCIA. We need help, and I hope that Congress hears our

plight and does something about it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Givens.

STATEMENT OF PHIL GIVENS

Mr. GIVENS. First of all I feel honored being here. I am from

Oklahoma. I am a bilingual Native American/African American

farmer. I have had the misfortune in my lifetime having to deal

with two Federal agencies based on where I live and my race and

ethnicity. From 1899 to 1906, the Department of Interior Bureau

of Indian Affairs told my grandfather and grandmother they could

have this land in Oklahoma. To this day yet, FSA officials do not

know how to perfect liens on restricted tribal trusts, simple fee allotted lands.

In 1988 USDA and the Department of Interior entered an interagency agreement. For 10 years, I have showed OGC attorneys—

some of them are here today present in this room—and I asked

them to tell me what the five types of Indian land we had in Oklahoma, and in that initial meeting they couldn’t. Since then, they

have learned the five types, but what has killed us in Oklahoma

among Native American farmers is that we have USDA employees

that can’t read. Why, I don’t know. I told an employee that and he

said I was a racist, hostile farmer. I said, what part of 7 CFR

1901.651 do you not understand? It says Indian outreach. It didn’t

say Black, Hispanic, it says Indian outreach.

I seem shocked. In 1996, I was right here in front of you all telling you all the same thing, and here we are today. I can’t go down

and mortgage my land to the bank, because I have to get approval

from the BIA. In 2000, USDA—Senator Glickman, Oklahoma is on

an action plan right now. We can’t even vote in the county committee elections, because our land hasn’t been reconstituted, tracked,

and put in the system, so we can get a ballot to vote. Hell, if I

could vote I would have a pow-wow, a hog-calling contest. I would

be sitting on the county committee.

We have no Native American representation on the county committee. The one that we had on the county committee this Federal

Government sent to Baghdad, and because he missed two county

committee meetings over in Baghdad and got shot—they threw him

off the county committee because he missed two meetings.

I mean, I am not getting emotional, but I am upset. Retaliation

and reprisal—I had a State director bar me from USDA offices.

OGC attorneys went to Oklahoma. One of them is sitting here behind me right now, Marlin Barts, the regional conservationist. The

only reason why they said they barred me from the office is that

I had access to all the top USDA employees in Washington, DC,

and I knew more than they did. I am probably the only farmer that

USDA has sent to school to do ethics training, Civil Rights training, 1951(s) training. Primary loan servicing that Mr. Garcia didn’t

get, they taught me how to do it. Yet, we still can’t get a substantial number of Native Americans loans.

One of the things that really upsets me, we have killed our kids.

We have had to fly up here and ask about scholarships, internships. How do we meet the White House diversity? Make USDA

look like this country. We have all the tribes in Oklahoma. Fortyseven Indian tribes are located in Oklahoma, yet we don’t have a

36

1994 Indian college, so we are missing some of those congressional

dollars.

There was retaliation and reprisal that came close to me. I mean,

it is rampant. If you go in the office and ask questions, you are labeled a troublemaker.

One of the things I would like to see is OGC attorneys removed

from any part of the Civil Rights. Our past Civil Rights Directors

had to butt heads with them. Vernon Parker was Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. We have had OGC lawyers tell them what

to do, and there needs to be a process, a mechanism, that would

streamline these complaint processes.

Complaints are trashed and thrown away. We have had GAO

people ask me how you came up with all these complaints. We

were smart enough to keep copies of them. When we file a complaint, we fly up here and go to the Reporters Building. I get a letter the next week saying they have thrown out the complaint, because they never received it, yet they signed for it. There were 176

Civil Rights complaints that were thrown out this year that I personally flew up here and hand-carried, based on the 2000 compliance review, the 1996 compliance review, and the 2003 action plan

Oklahoma was put on.

I just don’t see how it can end unless Congress jumps in here,

interviews farmers, brings the good USDA employees to the table,

and keeps their bosses from firing them when they step up to the

plate to try to help minority farmers like me.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Givens follows:]

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much.

Let me just say to the Members that we have three votes, and

I would like to adjourn until 4:15. I hate to do this, but we have

to vote around here. If we don’t, they make a big issue out of it

back in your District. So I want to pause until 4:15. So, we will adjourn until 4:15 and come back and start. We will start with you,

Mr. Lucas.

The committee stands adjourned until 4:15.

[Recess.]

Mr. TOWNS. The committee will come to order.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a small package

into the record.

Mr. TOWNS. Without objection.

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you very much.

[The information referred to follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. First I would like to thank you and the committee

for taking on this very daunting task of getting to the truth about

really what goes on at USDA.

I would like to thank you for allowing me, president of the USDA

Coalition of Minority Employees, to come and speak about the

abuses, the intimidation, the racism and sexism that has been

going on at USDA much longer than we expected.

I wasn’t invited to the fairness hearing, and I said before Judge

Freeman, this Pigford settlement is absent of accountability. There

is nothing in this settlement that will promise farmers that they

will not be discriminated in the future. I was right then, and I am

right now.

Other Senators have taken on this task, such as Senator Grassley, Senator Luger, and Senator Harkin.

This long struggle with USDA is a culture of racism, sexism, intimidation, and other abuses of an out-of-control agency in which

their Civil Rights office is dysfunctional in processing and administration of individual complaints of employees as well as farmers.

I come to you today after experiencing and being part of a tribunal with Congresswoman Jackson Lee. During the 2-days, we

heard riveting testimony from farmers, from employees about the

abuse that they have suffered at the hands of USDA.

I am sorry to say that John Boyd and many of us sitting at this

table were elated that we found out that we finally got an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. I must say today to you that Civil

Rights at USDA is worse now than it was when we first thought

in 2003 that we had an Assistant Secretary that was going to do

something about this problem.

The CRAT and CRIT reports, one of the most scathing reports

about an agency—and, by the way, they investigated themselves

under the Glickman administration. The Democrats did a fair job

of getting to that, but if you take a look around, the first thing that

this administration did with the new Assistant Secretary, their

leadership—and I am talking about leadership that is still there in

the Department of Agriculture to this day—they made sure that

the CRAT and CRIT reports were taken down from their Web site.

You cannot find one CRAT or CRIT report in the office, because we

tried to get it and we tried to also get them to adhere to the recommendations of that report.

I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, this Department is out of control. They express their zeal and their gall and their arrogance

when they decided to boot out the Office of General Counsel, who

came to investigate and audit some of the problems that we have

been saying, John Boyd and many of us at this table and other advocates and lawyers for farmers and employees for so many years

how dysfunctional that office is.

I think what happened was, they found out through their own

channel—the way I find out information—that they realize that the

employees were equally as fed up as the advocates. We, as well,

have been telling the Congress and many others. So, they decided

that they were going to shut down, and the Office of General Counsel at USDA, who will tell you years ago under J. Michael Kelly—

who is still there today—he will tell you for years after we settled

55

the Pigford case, there has been no discrimination against the

Black farmers. And, we have settled these cases at a tune of almost

$1 billion, but this is the kind of leadership and interference by the

Office of General Counsel that has an iron hold when it comes to

processing.

I have been sitting trying to resolve an individual complaint in

the ADR stage. They take their OGC attorneys to fight little people, so I know what they are doing when they are trying to fight

farmers.

The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights today and yesterday

have done a poor job and has been very disappointing. I think

there are some things that you need to know.

The Office of Civil Rights said that they were tracking the complaint systems, the complaints of employees and farmers. I have

been telling USDA and the Office of Civil Rights, but they stopped

talking to us, because we weren’t telling them what they wanted

to know. But, we have been telling the Office of the Secretary that

in the complaint system that they tell you is working all right, the

numbers don’t jive.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Lucas, could you sum up?

Mr. LUCAS. OK. In summary, what I would like to see from this

committee is to hopefully put together an advisory committee and

put the USDA Office of Civil Rights in receivership and appointment a board of five people, one from the Agriculture Committee,

one from the House Agriculture Committee, one from the Agriculture, one representing farmers, and one representing employees,

because USDA cannot police itself.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Lesa Donnelly.

STATEMENT OF LESA DONNELLY

Ms. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to

speak here today.

I would like to place on the record six declarations from Forest

Service employees from across the Nation.

Mr. TOWNS. Without objection.

Ms. DONNELLY. Thank you.

I worked for the USDA Forest Service for almost 25 years, from

1978 to 2002. In 1995, I filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of

6,000 Forest Service women in California, known as the Donnelly

v. Glickman. It resulted in a Consent Decree to deal with issues

of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and reprisal.

Prior to that lawsuit, there was a lawsuit called Bernardi that

went from approximately 1971 through 1994. Region Five California had been, through 2006, in Federal court monitored oversight

on gender discrimination issues for 30 years through 2006. Still,

women are sexually assaulted, threatened, and harassed to this

day.

As a lay advocate, I currently represent employees of California

across the Nation. They are victims of sexual assault, physical assault, sexual harassment, gender, racial, and disability discrimination, and a lot of reprisal.

For years and years, I have tried to work cooperatively with the

Forest Service and USDA leadership, from the Secretary’s office to

the Chief’s office to the regional offices, and it has been to no avail.

They refuse to work with us. We could be a long way ahead in preventing and eliminating these abuses of employees if they would

just come to the table and try to work with us, but they won’t.

They not only refuse to communicate; they ignore acts against

employees that are so egregious that you would think they would

have no conscience at all or humanity.

As an example, I would like to bring forward the situation in

2005 in which I had a meeting with Under Secretary Mark Ray

and tried to discuss the rape of a young female fire fighter in

southern California, and Mr. Ray advised me that he and the

USDA were not concerned about the incident, that it was merely

a police matter. The woman had been complaining of sexual harassment for months prior to that and it ended in a rape.

In 2005 another female fire fighter was sexually assaulted in

Sacramento. When we spoke to Assistant Secretary for Civil

Rights, Vernon Parker, he callously replied that it was not rape,

because there was no penis penetration. The woman had been penetrated by the man’s hand. He said it in a very callous manner.

When the Monitor tried to speak with him more about it, he just

dismissed it. He would not discuss it at all.

The callous and insensitive ways that USDA and Forest Service

management have dealt with these issues show a lack of concern,

a total inhumanity toward these victimized employees. They highlight the agency’s failure to address violations of law, policy, and

procedure.

62

Today, we have here with us Christine Levitop, who flew out

from California. She was sexually assaulted in 2004 and, as of this

day in 2008, she is still being retaliated against for reporting that.

The regional offices and Washington offices will not take any action

to stop this ongoing harassment and reprisal. There are numerous

cases that I could speak about, but we don’t have time for that

here, numerous cases.

Workplace violence is a very serious issue in USDA Forest Service and very problematic in Region Five California. They don’t follow regulations and policies.

I would like to bring to your attention a recent situation where

a White male supervisor threatened an African American female

subordinate with a gun. Management did not follow procedures

properly. The two women still fear for their lives, and there still

could be dire consequences from the agency not dealing with it.

I would like to state that something has to be done. I think we

need congressional oversight. I would like to emphasize that we

need a panel, an independent advisory panel to deal with this, to

deal with the reprisal which is rampant. And, I agree with Mr.

Lucas, I would like to emphasize that USDA needs to be placed

into receivership until something can be done for them to start

dealing with issues of harassment, discrimination, workplace violence, and sexual assault have no place in the Government. Someone is going to be killed, sir, unless something is done about this.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Donnelly follows:]

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. TOWNS. Let me thank all of you for your testimony, of

course.

At this time, I would just like to raise a few questions. You mentioned this retaliation. I am concerned about that, because it means

that workers can’t come forward to share, because they are afraid

that they might be retaliated against. That, to me, is very, very

disturbing. I think that it doesn’t strengthen the agency when you

behave and operate in that fashion. If a person comes forward with

information, or even a strong suggestion, it appears that something

negative might happen to them.

Is this a recent thing, or has this been going on all along, Mr.

Lucas?

Mr. LUCAS. What I have to offer is that the USDA Office of Civil

Rights is not a leader in this regard. It has been going on throughout the Department for a long time. They have gotten to a point

where if an employee speaks up and wants to improve the system

or tell about the problems of the system, they are the people who

are fired; they are the people who are put on discharge. We have

had almost the loss of the life of an employee because of the oppression, and the Office of Civil Rights, itself, has over 30 or 40

complaints filed against its former Director of Civil Rights. So, this

is a problem that is endemic, this reprisal and intimidation to control the kind of information that can come to this committee and

to the American public. They are just as much a part of the problem, and they are not part of the solution in this regard.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.

Let me ask you, Mr. Boyd, has the Department made any efforts

to increase minority membership in county office committees? Have

they made any attempt? It seems to me you need to have diversity

there, as well.

Mr. BOYD. I would say no. I think Mr. Givens touched on it earlier in his testimony about the lack of minorities that participate

on the county committee. That is such an important factor with

farm ownership loans, farm operating loans, farm equipment loans,

because if you don’t have representation in your area, the good old

boys continue to receive these farm ownership loans and operating

loans every year. What happens is, the county supervisor or county

director there in those particular counties say, ‘‘Mr. Boyd, we have

already used our allotted moneys for this year, so you guys are welcome to come back next year.’’ If you don’t have a person on that

county committee fighting for minority farmers in that area, you

are not going to see an increase in farm loans throughout the Farm

Service Agency.

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

Now, Mr. Givens, you mentioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I

wasn’t clear of the role the Bureau of Indian Affairs played in this.

Mr. GIVENS. Mr. Chairman, there is a uniqueness. We are the

only race of people that your blood quantum dictates services. The

blood quantum dictates services. Because I am more than one-quarter blood Cherokee Choctaw Indian, I still have to get permission

from the BIA to do business with USDA. We still have USDA employees who don’t understand CFRs as it relates to Native Americans.

70

A good example, I have children and relatives that would like to

participate in the county committee election process, but until

USDA employees do what we call reconstitution, put these tracts

of Indian land in the FSA computer, we don’t get to vote in allWhite county committee elections. We filed complaints since 1994

to the present, yet the Office of Civil Rights has thrown out these

complaints, even after compliance reviews were done. That is a serious problem.

I would love for some of our tribal members to sit on the county

committee, but that is an issue that FSA doesn’t want to address.

They say, ‘‘Well, we can’t identify Indian land.’’ Well, sir, I brought

a document here that says my grandfather was a full-blood Choctaw Indian in Oklahoma in 1904. Until this day, I still can’t get

all this Indian land in the FSA computer.

I have met with the Secretary, I have met with the Under Secretary Floyd Gaber February 7th, but yet, the Office of Civil Rights

has dismissed all our complaints over county committee election

processes.

Ms. Gray, who was the Civil Rights Director, traveled to Joplin,

Missouri, Oklahoma. We have Cheree Henry who at the time was

the Outreach Director. She tried to address these county committee

issues. She was treated rudely, disrespectfully, and had some racial

problems with the same office that I have to deal with every day.

So, for you all to hear that Native Americans don’t have full participation in USDA, we have the documentation to show that. None

of my kids have ever been able to participate in the county committee election. Everybody in the county office is hired by the allWhite county committee—uncles, nieces, and nephews. The credit

manager’s brother is chairman of the county committee. That is not

only unethical, that is criminal when they both sign off on each

other’s signature. We filed a complaint, but the Office of Civil

Rights hasn’t done anything.

We had a school superintendent that had to come up here last

year and meet with Thomas Hoffler, file the program complaint,

the Civil Rights complaint over county committee elections, and

this is the first time we have ever had county committee polling

places in Indian country. That is when gas was $2. Now it is $4.

So we don’t have access to the county committee election process.

That is the local vocal point of input that we should have.

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

Mr. GIVENS. I wish you all would do something about that.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add, as well, that

the minority advisors really don’t have any voting rights to these

committees. In some areas of the country, they have what is called

minority advisor to their committee, but they really don’t have any

voting rights. What they usually do is offer a loan to that person,

and that person usually does not go back out into the community

to try to help other Black farmers and other minority farmers. So,

we need to look at some of the policies so that we can get more representation for those voting members and get more participation

from Blacks and Hispanics.

The minority advisor is usually appointed, so it is not going to

be a person like John Boyd or Phil Givens or someone very vocal

in the community that is going to bring back and spread the word

71

to other minority farmers in the community. So, we need to look

at our policy and make some recommendations on how we can get

more minorities involved in the county committee.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me yield to a person that probably has more

farm land in his District than anybody else in the U.S. Congress,

from the State of North Carolina, Congressman Butterfield, 5 minutes.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for allowing me to participate in this proceeding today.

I am not on this subcommittee. That is my misfortune, but I do not

serve on this committee. I am on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and therefore we do not have direct jurisdiction over these

matters. But when the chairman told me that we would be delving

into this subject today, I wanted to be a part of it, and he graciously allowed me this opportunity. So, thank you very much, Mr.

Towns.

It is true that I represent the First Congressional District of

North Carolina. My District is in the northeastern part of the State

of North Carolina. It used to be called years ago the Black Belt,

and so, as you can imagine, we had many, many farms in my District that were owned by African American citizens many years

ago. But, over the years we have suffered a tremendous loss in

Black farmland in my Congressional District. My District has been

particularly hard-hit in terms of the loss of Black farmland and

Black farmers, and so I have an interest in this subject.

Twenty-five years ago, when I was president of the Black Lawyers Association in my State, we started the land loss prevention

project. Rosslyn Gray and others will remember when we started

that program. That program has been very instrumental in trying

to address this issue.

But, the Black farmers represent an important community, That

is the message that we have to convey every chance we get, Mr.

Chairman. It is an important community. It is part of the economy.

At the turn of the 20th century there were nearly 1 million

Black-owned farms in the United States. Today, that number is

down to about 18,000. That is a tragedy. That is an indictment,

and not only on the Congress but on our country as a whole, and

we must do better. Black-owned farms once represented 14 percent

of all farms. They now make up just 1 percent of all farms.

As the backbone of rural America, farmers play a critical role as

champions of micro-enterprise, land ownership, family values, and

rural culture. The plight of the small farmer, particularly the Black

farmer, has gone largely unaddressed. The Congress shares in that

responsibility. The USDA certainly shares in that responsibility.

We are going to hear from them in just a few minutes.

Years of discrimination against Black farmers, as well as other

socially disadvantaged farmers, by the USDA are directly responsible for the loss of land and the loss of a way of life for many

Black farmers in America. Recognition of deficiencies in the equitable treatment of farmers have been slow coming, to say the least,

at the USDA. The creation of the Office of Civil Rights in 1971 has

done little to improve or correct the deeply rooted elements of discrimination in the Department.

72

Its frequent reorganizations and reincarnations have failed to address the central issues of Black farmers and other socially disadvantaged farmers. This much was documented in the 2003 report

by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which found that the

changes in the Department had produced very little progress in

their Civil Rights enforcement program. The appointment of the

Civil Rights Action Team in 1996 shed some light on the problem,

but lacked the authority to make any substantive changes. The creation of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights by Congress in 2002

was the most significant step to this date to rectify outstanding

Civil Rights issues within the Department.

I am most interested in the testimony of Secretary ,McKay as to

the latest action within the Department to deal with that issue.

But of highest concern to me this day are two recent actions by individuals within the Department, which clearly illustrate clearly

the kind of lingering discrimination that plagues the Department

from Washington, DC, all the way down to the local offices

throughout the country.

The first was the unauthorized use of Government e-mail last

summer, among Farm Service Agency personnel to lobby against

new Pigford legislation in this year’s farm bill. I might say, Mr.

Chairman, as you well know, we passed just moments ago the farm

bill. That is why I came to the floor late—we just passed the farm

bill. It has in it $100 million for Pigford claimants.

[Applause.]

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. It has been a long time coming, and I am not

the only one who worked on that legislation, and credit goes to

many. Congressman Benny Thompson, Congressman David Scott,

Congressman Artur Davis, Congressman Bobby Scott—all of us

had a hand in trying to make this happen. But it is in the legislation. We passed it a few moments ago. It has the concurrence of

the Senate and should be headed to the President’s desk, and hopefully he will sign it. If he does not, I think we have the votes to

override. We do now have the votes to override that, so that is good

news.

[Applause.]

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I am personally proud of these historic steps

that we have taken in this year’s farm bill to help deserving Black

farmers, many of whom live in my District, including Mr. Pigford,

who calls me often. Many of whom you know, Pigford has led the

way, he is a constituent of mine, along with Gary Grant and other

Black farmers in the District who have suffered so much. So I am

proud of the historic steps that we have taken in this year’s farm

bill to give these farmers a true opportunity for redress.

Let me get back to these e-mails, and then I will conclude, Mr.

Chairman.

These e-mails, which were circulated on federally owned computers, illustrate a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the

Pigford decision, which was to award damages for the lost land and

income of thousands of Black farmers whose livelihood was ripped

from them, by the USDA’s discriminatory practices. The pervasiveness of this incident draws startling conclusions, as the depths that

long-term racial discrimination still exists within the Department,

and we must recognize that and we must do something about it.

73

I am further concerned by a February incident, between the GAO

auditors and the Office of Civil Rights within the Department, as

well.

So I join Senator Obama and John Conyers and Benny Thompson and Bobby Scott in Artur Davis in a letter condemning the incident and the denial of the GAO auditors from carrying out their

investigation of the Office of Civil Rights. The USDA did contact

my office in response to our letter, and I certainly appreciate their

prompt response; however, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate more

than that if they allow oversight wing of the Congress to have full

access in their investigation of the Office of Civil Rights. Denying

us our right to oversee the progress of this historically ineffective

office only serves to deepen our doubt about the USDA’s ability to

improve its track record.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have run out of time. I don’t

see your clock. My committee room has a very prominent clock.

Mr. TOWNS. It is there. It is on red.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have been looking for it. I need to look down

instead of looking up. But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

will include the remainder of my comments in the record.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. G.K. Butterfield follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your participation and also the work that you have done on this. You called

some names that I have been dealing with for the last 20-some

years. Of course, when you mentioned Pigford and, of course, Boyd

and people like that who we have had the opportunity to work with

for many, many years on these issues, it is sad to say that we still

have problems after all these years. Of course, I want to assure you

that this committee is going to continue to look at these matters,

we are going to continue to work on them, and I do believe that

some changes need to be made.

I notice you made some suggestions in terms of the advisory committee. You talked about even receivership. I hear you. I think that

there is nepotism that was talked about, and some things there. So

the point is that these are areas that we are concerned about, and

we feel that in order to create a level playing field, that some of

these things just have to be corrected.

Of course, we listen to you, Mr. Givens, in reference to not only

the fact that USDA, but also the Bureau of Indian Affairs—you

have a double whammy there, so we hear you and, of course, we

will continue to look at these matters and to see what we might

be able to do to give you some assistance.

We are not going to go away. We are going to continue, because

we have heard the statistics in terms of land loss. I mean, at the

rate we are going, within the next 15 to 20 years nobody Black will

own anything, at the rate you are going. So I think that is wrong.

I listened to you, Ms. Donnelly, in terms of the treatment in

terms of women. That to me is very, very disturbing. I think in this

day and age for anybody to react to something in that negative

kind of fashion, to me just does not make sense. I want you to

know I appreciate your comments. We appreciate your sharing

with us.

On this point what we would like to do is to thank you for your

testimony. We are going to discharge you and we will take another

20-minute break, and then we are going to come back for the second panel. But let me thank all of you for your testimony. Thank

you very much.

[Recess.]

Mr. TOWNS. It is a longstanding tradition that we always swear

our witnesses in, so please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TOWNS. Let it be known that all of them answered in the affirmative.

We have with us today the Honorable Margo McKay, who serves

as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department

of Agriculture. Ms. McKay sets policy and ensures compliance with

all Civil Rights laws by USDA’s agencies. She is also responsible

for diversity, outreach, and alternative dispute resolution programs

of USDA.

Phyllis Fong has served as the Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture since December 2002. Under her leadership,

the USDA’s Office of Inspector General has issued numerous reports detailing weaknesses in Civil Rights management at USDA.

Welcome.

79

We also have with us Lisa Shames, the Director of Natural Resources and the Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, where she had conducted several audits that have focused on USDA’s Civil Rights efforts.

Let me just indicate that your entire statement will be placed in

the record. If you just could summarize within 5 minutes, I would

certainly appreciate it.

Why don’t we start with you, Ms. McKay. Will you proceed?

STATEMENTS OF MARGO MCKAY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; PHYLLIS FONG, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND LISA SHAMES, DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE

AND FOOD SAFETY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

STATEMENT OF MARGO MCKAY

Ms. MCKAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the

opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today. I am happy

to share whatever information that I can with you, because I believe we have a good story to tell. USDA has made significant

progress in the area of Civil Rights since the creation of this position in the 2002 farm bill.

The mission of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil

Rights is to provide leadership and guidance, to ensure compliance

with Civil Rights laws and policies, and to promote diversity, equal

opportunity, equal access, and fair treatment for all USDA customers and employees.

It is my intent that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil

Rights will be proactive, supportive, accountable, efficient, and

timely in order to help USDA become a model employer and provide equal access and opportunity to those who wish to participate

in USDA programs and services.

I would like to point out a few of our accomplishments in recent

years.

First, diversity in USDA: in the area of diversity, I began a concerted effort to incorporate workplace diversity and inclusion as a

core value at USDA in order to positively impact the organizational

culture. We established a new Office of Diversity and charged them

with building a world-class diversity and inclusion program that includes initiatives such as cultural assessments, employee perspective surveys, mandatory diversity awareness training, a diversity

and inclusion forum that will foster dialog between USDA employees and senior management, and work force planning.

In the area of outreach, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights continues to collaborate with USDA agencies and external organizations to expand and strengthen the Department’s

outreach efforts to focus on the under-served. Through the Office

of Outreach we have initiated policies and are implementing programs to increase the Department’s capacity to provide access and

technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Just as one example, we have trained and worked with community-based organizations this past year to work with the socially

80

disadvantaged farmers, to help us increase their count in the 2007

Census of Agriculture.

With regard to diversity in county committees, first I want to

point out that county committees play no role in the farm loan

credit system and have not been involved in that process since

1999. Nonetheless, they do still have an important role in farm programs. Since the passage of the 2002 farm bill, USDA health as

promulgated guidelines in January 2005, to ensure that the FSA

county committees include fair representation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

USDA uses agriculture census to target certain counties, and

they have come up with 400 counties so far with over 10 percent

minority population for special outreach efforts. And counties that

don’t have a voting socially disadvantaged members must appoint

a non-voting socially disadvantaged member. There are about 1,500

such advisors who attend county committee meetings to lend their

voice, and they are influential.

Candidates can self-nominate, and through effective outreach efforts nominations of SDA—socially disadvantaged—farmers, nominations have increased 60 percent over the last 3 years. However,

our analysis shows that elections over the past 3 years have not

yielded significantly more socially disadvantaged voting members.

Currently my office is working with FSA to develop criteria for the

Secretary to consider appointing voting socially disadvantaged

members to some county committees in order to achieve fair representation.

I might add that county committee members are held to the

same Civil Rights policies and standards as Federal employees.

Even though they are not Federal employees, they are bound to our

Civil Rights policies and they can be removed for violating these

policies.

Our ultimate goal is to have an environment where discrimination does not occur, where every decision is based on merit, but we

do need to have a process in place to handle situations when discrimination does occur. So my role is to make sure that we have

that process in place. So with regard to complaints, the problems

of backlog case inventory and case processing times at USDA Civil

Rights have been many years in the making. I have inherited this

situation, and I want to tell you what I am doing to address it.

The automated complaint system, a Civil Rights enterprise system which was fully implemented in mid-2007, has enabled us to

start tackling these problems with better monitoring and reporting

capability. We are still not able to conduct an accurate trends analysis, because the historical data that we migrated into the system

has come from unreliable sources. The systems that we had in the

past which were inaccurate.

But this system that we have now is a vast improvement, over

anything that we have ever had in the past, and going forward

with the input of current case data, we will be able to do trends

analysis.

The system is beautiful. It works beautifully if the employees put

the data in. We do have some challenges in that area. We have a

lot of hands that have to touch the system, including at the agency

level and the department level. We have had training for everyone

81

involved. We have monthly user meetings so that any bugs in the

system or any glitches can be worked out. And we are continuing,

of course, to work out those bugs and to work toward further enhancements of the system. But the system is new. We need to have

an opportunity to give it a chance to work.

In addition, we are implementing several strategies to address

internal and external factors affecting the management of Civil

Rights complaints. These strategies include special efforts, to eliminate the backlog. I have hired contractors and engaged in contracting services to help us eliminate the backlog. We will be finished

with the employment backlog by the end of this fiscal year in terms

of issuing final decisions, and we have already eliminated the program backlog at the final agency decision stage.

I also have started something new, where I require weekly and

monthly inventory and productivity reports that come to the leadership. So we need to know how things are going and how things

are being accomplished, so that we can intervene if things are

going awry.

We have also revised performance and productivity standards for

employees. We have modified complaint processing procedures. As

I mentioned, we are utilizing contractual services and inter-agency

agreements to assist with case processing, and we are encouraging

increased use of alternative dispute resolution in the informal and

formal stages.

We are addressing timeliness and jurisdictional issues in a more

timely way, and we are providing additional training for staff, filling critical vacancies and implementing quality of work life and

professional development strategies for the Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights employees.

I want to mention, while I am talking about complaints, that we

do not condone retaliation. We have a policy against it. Anyone

who feels as though they have been retaliated has the right to file

another complaint, a new complaint, and have that heard. And we

have mandatory annual training, annual Civil Rights training

every year at USDA for all USDA employees, and the 2007 Civil

Rights training was in the area of retaliation.

I want to speak a little bit. My last point is about accountability.

Every USDA employee has a Civil Rights and diversity performance standard against which they are evaluated annually. Agency

heads are evaluated annually based on their Civil Rights performance. And in the past, they have been able to get a good score by

earning extra credit. So, for example, by conducting training above

and beyond the mandatory Civil Rights training that all USDA employees must take, or putting on a conference. However, during my

tenure I have changed the practice so that——

Mr. TOWNS. Could you sum up?

Ms. MCKAY. Yes. Going forward, certain factors will be absolute

and cannot be made up, such as completing complaint investigations on time, so that will help us in our timeliness.

Also, USDA has a policy that requires that we refer a case to the

appropriate H.R. office, for possible disciplinary action whenever

there is a finding of discrimination. This is a policy that went into

effect in 2006.

82

In summary, I respectfully disagree with those who say we are

doing nothing to improve Civil Rights at USDA. Perhaps we

haven’t done enough to get the word out, but we have been very

busy with all these initiatives, and I am very proud of our record

and what we are attempting to do.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKay follows:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you.

The Honorable Phyllis Fong.

STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS FONG

Ms. FONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to testify

today. I appreciate the chance to talk about the work that our office has done in overseeing USDA’s Civil Rights program.

The issue of Civil Rights and the processing of Civil Rights complaints has been a significant issue to us for a long time. We have

issued 11 audits, on a variety of issues in the program over a 10-

year period, and that work is summarized in my statement.

Today, I want to focus on some of the recurring themes that we

have seen in our reports, and then discuss our most recent report.

We looked at our reports over this last period of time and we

have found a number of themes that we believe are relevant to you

today because we believe they identify fundamental issues in the

program that need to be addressed if USDA is to move forward.

These themes include the continuous internal reorganization within the Civil Rights Office that has occurred. There is, turnover at

both management and staff levels that has occurred. There is, in

our view, a lack of effective leadership and accountability to correct

reported problems that have been identified. And there is a lack of

adequate management controls to track progress in achieving results.

Many of these themes came out in our most recent report, which

we issued about a year ago, on how USDA was addressing EEO

complaints and employee accountability. We had several key findings that I want to highlight.

First, we found that Civil Rights had made improvements in the

amount of time that it takes to process complaints, but we found

that additional efforts are needed to close complaints in an acceptable timeframe. For comparison’s sake, in 1997 it took the Department on average 3 years to process a complaint; by 2007 this had

improved significantly to just under 11⁄2 years, but this still falls

short of the EEOC’s timeframe. They would like Federal agencies

to process cases within 270 days, so USDA has a ways to go on

that.

In a second area, we found that Civil Rights had made progress

in implementing CRES, the automated system that Assistant Secretary McKay referred to. This system is a good system, and when

it is fully implemented we believe it will be helpful to the Department in tracking complaints and providing data for reports. We

found, however, that further work is needed to ensure the accuracy

of the data that is being entered into the system. For example, in

17 percent of the files that we looked at, the data recorded in

CRES was not supported by the documents in the complaint files.

So there needs to be a process to validate the accuracy of the information entered into the system.

Third, we found that, while Civil Rights had made progress in

managing its physical case files, it still needed to establish adequate controls over its file room operations. We asked Civil Rights

to review 64 complaint files as part of our review. Of the 64, the

office could not locate readily 15 of the files. It took more than a

month to locate 13 of them. The 14th one was never found and had

93

to be recreated. And the 15th one was provided to us 6 months

after we had requested it.

As a result of our review, we made recommendations to address

all of these issues, and the Office of Civil Rights has agreed to implement all of them.

Where we are, in conclusion, is that we believe that the processing of Civil Rights complaints continues to be a significant management challenge for USDA. It is very important to employees and

participants to get timely action on their complaints, and we appreciate the interest that you have shown in these matters. We look

forward to working with you and with the Assistant Secretary, and

we also want to express our appreciation to the Assistant Secretary

for her cooperation in our audit.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fong follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you so much for your testimony, Ms. Fong.

Ms. Shames.

STATEMENT OF LISA SHAMES

Ms. SHAMES. Chairman Towns, I am pleased to be here today to

discuss the Department of Agriculture’s progress in addressing

longstanding Civil Rights issues. As you know, for years USDA has

been the focus of reviews into allegations of discrimination against

minorities and women, both in its programs and in its work force.

Many, including the Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, the

EEOC, USDA’s own Inspector General, as well as GAO have provided constructive analyses and made recommendations to improve

its Civil Rights efforts. Unfortunately, based on GAO’s work to

date, we find that USDA’s management of its Civil Rights efforts

continues to be deficient.

Specifically, we found persistent problems in resolving discrimination complaints, unreliable reports on minority participation in

USDA programs, and limited planning to ensure USDA’s services

and benefits are provided fairly and equitably.

First, regarding discrimination complaints, when the Office of

the Assistant Secretary was established in 2003, one of its top priorities was to reduce the backlog and inventory of discrimination

complaints that it had inherited. Four years later, the office’s

progress report, entitled, The First One Thousand Days, stated

that the backlog had been reduced and the inventory was manageable; however, the disparities we found in the numbers USDA reported to the Congress and the public undermined the credibility

of any claims. We found numerous disparities, and some of these

disparities were in the hundreds.

For example, in this progress report released in July 2007 USDA

reported the number of customer complaints was stated to be 404

in its inventory at the end of fiscal year 2005. However, 1 month

earlier, USDA reported to this subcommittee that the number of

complaints in its inventory was 1,275. USDA qualified this number

and other numbers to this subcommittee as the best available and

acknowledged that they were incomplete and unreliable.

USDA is aware of these issues; however, fundamentally there appears to be a lack of management attention to resolving the backlog of complaints. For example, we would have expected routine

management reports to track these cases, but we were told none

are generated, because they are not required by law.

We are pleased to hear that Ms. McKay is now going to be requiring the sorts of reports that are intended to bring consistent

management attention.

Second, regarding minority participation in USDA programs,

Congress required USDA to report annually on minority farmers’

participation in USDA programs by race, ethnicity, and gender.

USDA issued three reports for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

however, USDA disclosed that its demographic data in these reports are unreliable because they are largely based on visual observation. The drawback to visual observation is that some demographic traits may not be readily apparent to an observer.

Collecting demographic data directly from program participants

requires approval from the Office of Management and Budget

105

[OMB]. USDA started to seek OMB’s approval to collect these data

in 2004, but did not follow through because we were told of insufficient resources. According to USDA officials, they are planning future actions to obtain the necessary authority.

In addition, we found the Web-based supplementary data for

these reports to be of limited usefulness. They are published in

over 1,300 separate tables and 146 maps. This format does not facilitate analysis such as comparing minority participation by program, location, and year.

Finally, regarding planning to ensure USDA’s services and benefits are provided fairly and equitably, results oriented strategic

planning provides a road map that clearly describes what an organization is attempting to achieve, and over time it can communicate to the Congress and the public about what has been accomplished. While the Office of the Assistant Secretary has defined its

mission and strategic goal, looking forward stakeholders’ interests

should be more explicitly reflected in the planning.

For example, our interviews with stakeholders informed us that

their interests include assuring the diversity of the USDA’s county

committee system and better addressing language differences,

among other things.

Data collection to demonstrate progress toward achieving its mission and goal is an important next step for measuring performance.

A discussion on how data collected by other USDA agencies, such

as a National Agricultural Statistics Service or the Economic Research Service is especially important in an era of limited resources.

Last, using data to identify gaps can help USDA improve performance on its Civil Rights efforts. For example, in 2002 GAO recommended that USDA establish time requirements for all stages of

the complaint process. With these standards, along with routine

management reports to track cases along the lines of what we just

heard, this office can begin to troubleshoot its most problematic

areas.

In conclusion, USDA has been addressing allegations of discrimination for years. One lawsuit has cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion

to date, and several other groups are seeking redress for similar alleged discrimination. Despite the numerous past efforts to provide

USDA with constructive analyses and recommend actions for improvement, significant management deficiencies remain. Such resistance to improve its management calls into question USDA’s

commitment to more efficiently and effectively address discrimination complaints both within its agency and across its programs.

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shames follows:]

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much. Let me thank all three of you

for your testimony.

Let me begin, I guess, by asking the IG, throughout GAO’s investigation there were reports that the Department withheld access to

certain records, instructed employees not to cooperate with the

GAO, and actually forced GAO’s investigators to leave USDA premises when GAO was seeking to interview USDA employees as part

of its review.

Because GAO is an independent nonpartisan agency that works

for Congress, your Department’s denial of access of GAO to records

and employees also denies Congress’ role in providing effective and

appropriate oversight.

Why was GAO told to leave USDA’s offices in February 2008?

Who made that decision?

Ms. FONG. I will take a crack at that question, and I would invite

any information from Ms. Shames, as well.

We were called by GAO in February, after the situation had

come to a head, and what we were told by GAO was that they had

sought to interview USDA employees about some allegations that

documents may have been shredded improperly or that data may

have been erroneously changed. At that time, we did not know the

background on that, but we immediately saw that there was an

issue. Our sense was that the allegations, if true, would potentially

indicate criminal conduct, and so we felt very clearly that we had

jurisdiction within the IG’s office to look into this, so we reached

out to GAO’s investigative staff and decided that we would work

this jointly to deal with the concerns that had been articulated by

USDA’s General Counsel.

I think the General Counsel had two concerns. One is whether

GAO’s investigative staff had authority to conduct criminal investigations; and, second, whether or not USDA employees were given

the appropriate advice on their rights and responsibilities. We believed that by getting involved ourselves with GAO that we could

address those concerns on the part of the General Counsel, and at

the same time accommodate GAO’s need to get access to the information, as well as carry out our responsibility to look into potential

criminal issues.

I think we were able to successfully resolve that situation. We

were able to interview the employees that were involved, and to

complete the work.

Ms. SHAMES. If I might jump in, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. TOWNS. Sure.

Ms. SHAMES. The bottom line is that in the end GAO was able

to interview, along with the OIG, all of the USDA employees that

we felt we needed to talk to to gather more information concerning

several allegations that we heard concerning obstructing GAO’s

work, shredding some documents, as well as manipulating some of

the data.

In the end, we got full cooperation from USDA. We were able to

gather sufficient information to either refer some of these allegations back to the Inspector General or to the Department of Justice, and in the end GAO was able to get sufficient information to

be able to report out on the findings that I gave to you today.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you very much.

141

Let me go to you, Ms. McKay. You heard the testimony from Mr.

Boyd, of course, and Mr. Givens, and you stated that county committees played no role in the disbursement of USDA program benefits. But we have heard time and time again from farmers that are

discriminated against by these county boards when they apply for

loans. You heard, as indicated, Mr. Givens, Mr. Boyd, and, of

course, I have talked to others, and there are no minorities on

these county committees. What role does the county committee

play?

Ms. MCKAY. The county committee does not get involved in applications for credit programs. There are other USDA programs

and benefits that they do get involved in, such as disaster assistance. They do have a very important role in making sure that local

farmers have access to USDA programs and services. However,

there is a misconception that they still play a role in approving applications for credit. They do not and have not since 1999. Applications for farm loans, operating loans, go directly to the FSA county

office, not to the county committees.

Mr. TOWNS. Now, you indicated that you made some progress.

Ms. MCKAY. Yes.

Mr. TOWNS. Could you be specifics, because the general feeling

out there is that nothing is really being done, and they have actually lost confidence in you and your Civil Rights Division. They

have lost confidence in it. You heard some of the comments here

today.

Ms. MCKAY. Yes.

Mr. TOWNS. So could you respond to that?

Ms. MCKAY. Well, I think that a lot of the comments that were

made predate my tenure at USDA, and I understand how they feel.

I would feel the same way. But, respectfully, I think they are not

looking at what we are trying to do. It is a large ship and it turns

slowly, and the initiatives that I am working on right now will

eventually pay off. These problems were years in the making; they

are not going to go away overnight.

I think I can do a better job in communicating what we are working on, which is why I really appreciate the opportunity to be here

today to talk about what we are doing. And I do honestly believe

that it will pay off.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Do you have time tables, aims, objectives, and

goals?

Ms. MCKAY. We do. We have a diversity strategic plan. We have

an outreach strategic plan. We have strategic plans in place or in

clearance for our initiatives.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me just point out to you, USDA’s recent history

has included several serious accusations of non-compliance with

Federal and Civil Rights statutes. As a result of Pigford, USDA

health as recompensed more than 13,000 Black farmers nearly $1

billion—that is B as in Boy—in damages for Civil Rights violations.

Since then, three other class action suits have been filed alleging

racial or gender discrimination in FSA programs: Garcia v. Glickman on behalf of Hispanic farmers; Keepseigel v. Glickman on behalf of American Indians; and Love v. Glickman on behalf of

women.

142

How many USDA employees were terminated or in any way disciplined for those more than 13,000 instances of discrimination?

Ms. MCKAY. I can’t tell you that. First of all, I was not here then.

Second, there was no reporting mechanism at the time, at the time

of Pigford in the 1990’s. As I mentioned in my statement, we do

now have an accountable policy that requires, whenever there is a

finding of discrimination, and even sometimes in a settlement, that

persons who are found to have committed wrongdoing are referred

to the appropriate H.R. office for disciplinary action.

Mr. TOWNS. So do you hear whether anybody was fired?

Ms. MCKAY. I have heard, but I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to say here because I don’t have any basis in fact for

what I am hearing.

Mr. TOWNS. I just find it sort of difficult to think about 13,000

wrongdoings. If it was in private industry, some heads would roll,

no ifs, ands, and buts about it, and you know that.

Ms. MCKAY. I don’t know that they didn’t roll. I just don’t know

one way or the other.

Mr. TOWNS. Well, according to the information that we have,

they did not roll. Many of the farmers in the first panel pointed out

discrimination in the administration of programs benefit by FSA.

Although the details vary from farmer to farmer, the general outlines of the stories remain the same. A minority farmer tries to

apply for farm operating loan through the FSA county office, well

in advance of planting season. The FSA county office might claim

to have no applications—can you imagine that? No applications

available, and ask the farmer to return later.

Now, planting is a timely thing that you have to do during a certain timeframe, and you can’t plant after a certain date and time

because of a lot of reasons. And upon returning, the farmer might

receive an application without any assistance in completing it, and

then asked repeatedly to correct mistakes or complete oversight in

the loan application.

Why wouldn’t somebody give him technical assistance, because

some of these farmers don’t have a lot of training in terms of their

educational training, but they know how to farm.

Ms. MCKAY. Right.

Mr. TOWNS. And they have been doing it all their lives. That is

all they know. I mean, why wouldn’t technical assistance be available to those farmers?

Ms. MCKAY. Well, we rely on the community-based organizations

to provide that kind of local hands-on technical assistance. In addition, we have a Center for Minority Farmers at USDA so that if

someone calls we might be able to assist, but we don’t have the

staff to be throughout the country assisting farmers to fill out applications. We do work with our partners, our community-based

and faith-based organizations. We train them. We rely upon them

when we have our partners meeting, which we do regularly. And

actually they get grants also to provide that kind of technical assistance.

Mr. TOWNS. Another thing they complain about is that when

they get the loan, if they get it, it is reduce, and then it is not

enough to be able to go and to pay the vendors and to move forward. Of course, here they are with not enough, stuck with a loan,

143

not being able to plant. How do you expect them to pay it? That

is the reason why I think technical assistance just would be automatic, because we know that farmers don’t generally have Ph.Ds.

Ms. MCKAY. Right. And also the local FSA office is supposed to

provide technical assistance, and if they don’t then we need to hear

about it through the complaint process.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me ask this, then. If you have an office or an

agency that is not complying, what happens to them? If these complaints come in and the fact that there is no applications in the office, and they complain, what generally happens in a case like this?

Help me.

Ms. MCKAY. I don’t understand what you mean what generally

happens.

Mr. TOWNS. There is no repercussion? For instance, if I have an

agency and I am providing applications and I have no applications,

and I had no applications last year, and I had no applications when

I came in, then something should happen to that agency. I mean,

the person that is providing the service, shouldn’t they be penalized? What happens to them?

Ms. MCKAY. If the case——

Mr. TOWNS. Because if I say to you that I went and they had no

application, and then I let you know there is no application, isn’t

somebody supposed to do something about that?

Ms. MCKAY. I would agree with you. I don’t disagree with you.

And if the case can be proven, then there should be consequences.

Mr. TOWNS. Well, let me put it this way: I have been in this business a long time. In fact, I am in my 26th year here in the U.S.

Congress. I started in this 26 years ago, and I heard the complaints

26 years ago coming from some names that I hear right here on

this paper right today. Of course, the complaints were basically

saying—I can’t hold you responsible for all 26 years, but I can hold

you responsible for the years that you have been here, because getting applications does not require a big plan of action and all that;

it just requires having some papers where they are supposed to be.

Somebody has to be responsible. In terms of your role as the Secretary for Civil Rights, I mean, and knowing these complaints

exist, wouldn’t you find it necessary to make certain that everyone

has applications that they can give out to people?

Ms. MCKAY. Absolutely, but this is the first I am hearing of it.

I have not received a case with that allegation.

Mr. TOWNS. Well, let me just say this. There is a problem, and

I think you should at least be aware of the fact there is a problem.

Ms. MCKAY. If someone brings those facts to me, I will make

sure they get into the system and are thoroughly vetted and looked

at.

Mr. TOWNS. And also I just wanted to let you know that Pigford

v. USDA—you know about that one—and then you have these

other three that are pending. To me, that is a message. That says

that something has to be straightened out here, because also you

have Love v. Glickman on behalf of women. These are problems.

When you talk to people in general, they are not positive at all.

I just think you need to know that.

I want to help you. I want to help you. I want to see what we

can do. Now, I know we talked about the advisory committees, and

144

there is very little confidence in that. I understand that the people

that oversee, once they get their loan they don’t see anything. That

is a problem. If I am supposed to work with everybody and see that

everybody is treated fairly, and then I come in and put my application in and you give me my loan and then I am blind from that

point on, I don’t see anything, that is not the way to go. So we need

to sort of find a way that makes it possible for people to feel that

they are being treated fairly and that they are being treated fairly,

and that the farmer has an opportunity to plant in a timely fashion.

If you get the money in December and say that you didn’t get it

before, what can you plant in December? That is the problem.

So all these things are what people are saying to me, and I have

indicated the fact that I started with this 26 years ago. Of course,

I left it alone because we had people that were working on the Agriculture Committee and they sort of took it over, but a lot has not

happened positively since that time.

So let me put it this way: we are not going to go away. We are

going to stay on this. I am willing to help you. Maybe you need

some resources. I don’t know what it is, but I think you need to

be open and honest with us, because this has to be fixed, because

if not you are going to have more suits, more suits, more people

going to lose their farms, and that is not anything you want to

leave as your legacy, that you were around when X percent lost

their farms. I don’t think you want that as a legacy. I don’t think

so.

Anyway, thank you for your testimony. I thank all of you for the

work that you are doing. I want you to know that we are going to

be following up on this. This is not the last time you are hearing

from me.

Ms. MCKAY. Thank you, Chairman. We look forward to working

with you.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much.

On that note, the committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Æ