I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4398 
To provide relief for African-American farmers filing claims in the cases 
of Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. Veneman. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
NOVEMBER 18, 2005 
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Mr. BISHOP of 
Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned 
A BILL 
To provide relief for African-American farmers filing claims 
in the cases of Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington 
v. Veneman. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘African-American 
Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING CLAIM IN 
PIGFORD V. VENEMAN. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1998, a lawsuit was filed against the De-
partment of Agriculture (referred to in this sub-
section as the ‘‘USDA’’), the second largest agency 
of the Federal Government, alleging that the USDA 
had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 
U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) and the Administrative Proce-
dure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) by maintaining a 
pattern and practice of discrimination against Afri-
can-American farmers. Such pattern and practice 
delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts 
of African-American farmers to obtain loan assist-
ance and to engage in the vocation of farming. 
(2) In January 1999, the United States Dis-
trict Court of the District of Columbia approved the 
largest civil rights settlement in the history of the 
United States. Following the settlement, the Afri-
can-American farmers and the USDA entered into a 
five-year consent decree. 
(3) In April 1999, the court approved the set-
tlement and assigned four entities to facilitate imple-
mentation of the consent decree. 
(4) According to a USDA Inspector General re-
port, many discrimination complaints were never 
processed, investigated, or otherwise resolved, and 
the discrimination complaint process at the Farm
Services Agency lacked ‘‘integrity, direction, and ac-
countability’’. 
(5) Delays in processing the discrimination 
claims of many African-American farmers resulted 
in numerous farmers losing their right to file claims. 
(6) As of July 14, 2000, the statute of limita-
tions provided under the Equal Credit Opportunity 
Act has run on many of the claims. 
(7) On November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judici-
ary of the House of Representatives received sworn 
testimony that alleged serious violations of the right 
to notice as it applied to the consent decree and to 
all those who had viable claims of discrimination 
against the USDA. 
(8) Such testimony further alleged that al-
though the consent decree notice campaign was 
deemed to be effective by the court, that campaign 
proved deficient because approximately 66,000 po-
tential class members submitted their claims in an 
untimely fashion. 
(9) Approximately 73,800 petitions were filed 
before the September 15, 2000, late filing deadline, 
of which only 2,131 were approved.
(10) Of the approximately 21,000 timely re-
quests for reconsideration, 10,745 of those requests 
have been decided, but only 140 have been approved. 
(b) DE NOVO REVIEW OF CERTAIN CLAIMS FILED 
IN PIGFORD V. VENEMAN.—A person who submitted a pe-
tition for redress in the settlement of the relevant case 
before the date of the enactment of this Act may obtain 
de novo consideration of the petition before an adjudicator 
assigned by the facilitator of the consent decree of such 
case if— 
(1) the petition was denied on the grounds of 
untimely filing; 
(2) not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, such person submits a subse-
quent petition for redress in such settlement; and 
(3) such person submits an affidavit to the ad-
judicator asserting that such person did not receive 
effective notice of the filing deadline in such consent 
decree. 
(c) NOTICE TO USDA.—Not later than 30 days after 
a person submits a petition pursuant to subsection (b)(2), 
the facilitator of the consent decree of the relevant case 
shall provide notice to the Secretary of Agriculture of such 
petition. 
(d) LOAN DATA.—
(1) REPORT
TO
PERSON
SUBMITTING
PETI-
TION.—Not later than 60 days after the Secretary 
of Agriculture receives notice pursuant to subsection 
(c) of a petition filed pursuant to subsection (b)(2), 
the Secretary shall provide to the person that filed 
such petition a report on farm credit loans made 
within the claimant’s State by the Department dur-
ing the period beginning on January 1, 1992, and 
ending on the date of the enactment of this Act. 
Such report shall contain information on all persons 
whose application for a loan was accepted, includ-
ing— 
(A) the race of the applicant; 
(B) the date of application; 
(C) the date of the loan decision; 
(D) the location of the office making the 
loan decision; and 
(E) all data relevant to the process of de-
ciding on the loan. 
(2) NO PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMA-
TION.—The reports provided pursuant to paragraph 
(1) shall not contain any information that would 
identify any person that applied for a loan from the 
Department of Agriculture.
(e) 
LIMITATION
ON
FORECLOSURES.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agri-
culture may not foreclose a loan if the borrower makes 
a prima facie case to an adjudicator assigned by the 
facilitator of the consent decree of the relevant case that 
the foreclosure is proximately related to discrimination by 
the Department of Agriculture. 
(f) NOTICE.— 
(1) KNOWN CLASS MEMBERS.—Not later than 
45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide to all 
known members of the class in the relevant case no-
tice of the de novo review available under subsection 
(b). 
(2) ADVERTISEMENTS.—The Secretary of Agri-
culture shall announce the de novo review available 
under subsection (b) by arranging to— 
(A) broadcast 40 commercials on the cable, 
Internet, network, and radio broadcast outlets 
throughout the United States with the largest 
African-American audiences during a 30-day 
period; 
(B) broadcast 40 commercials on the cable, 
Internet, network, and radio broadcast outlets
in the relevant region with the largest African- 
American audiences during a 30-day period; 
(C) broadcast 50 commercials on the cable, 
Internet, network, and radio broadcast outlets 
with the largest national audiences during a 30- 
day period; 
(D) have one-quarter page advertisements 
placed in 27 general circulation newspapers and 
115 African-American newspapers in the rel-
evant region during a 14-day period; 
(E) have a full page advertisement placed 
in the editions of the magazine TV Guide that 
are distributed in the relevant region; and 
(F) have half-page advertisements placed 
in the national editions of magazines with the 
highest percentages of African-American read-
ership. 
(g) MONITOR.— 
(1) SELECTION.—Not later than 45 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the parties to 
the relevant case shall select an independent Monitor 
who shall report directly to the Secretary of Agri-
culture. If the parties are unable to agree on a Mon-
itor after good faith negotiations, the plaintiffs and 
the defendants shall each submit two persons to the
Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit who shall ap-
point a Monitor from among such persons. 
(2) DUTIES.—The Monitor— 
(A) not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, and at least semi-
annually thereafter, shall submit to the Sec-
retary of Agriculture and make publicly avail-
able on the Internet a report detailing the im-
plementation of this Act and whether such im-
plementation is being done in good faith; 
(B) if the Monitor determines that a clear 
and manifest error has occurred in the screen-
ing, adjudication, or arbitration of a claim and 
such error has resulted or is likely to result in 
a fundamental miscarriage of justice, may di-
rect the adjudicator or facilitator to review the 
claim; 
(C) shall be available to class members and 
the public through a toll-free telephone number 
in order to facilitate the lodging of any com-
plaints relating to this Act or the consent de-
cree of the relevant case and to expedite the 
resolution of such complaints; and
(D) if the Monitor is unable to resolve a 
problem brought to the attention of the Monitor 
pursuant to subparagraph (C), may file a re-
port with the counsels of the parties who may 
then seek enforcement of this Act and such con-
sent decree pursuant to paragraph 13 of such 
consent decree. 
(3) TERM.—The Monitor shall remain in exist-
ence for a period of 5 years and shall not be re-
moved except for good cause. 
(4) EXPENSES.—The Secretary of Agriculture 
shall pay the fees and expenses of the Monitor. 
(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) 
LARGEST
AFRICAN-AMERICAN
AUDI-
ENCES.—The term ‘‘largest African-American audi-
ences’’ means those audiences determined to have 
the largest number of African-American listeners, 
viewers, or users as determined by the Arbitron or 
Nielsen rating systems. 
(2) 
LARGEST
NATIONAL
AUDIENCES.—The 
term ‘‘largest national audiences’’ means those audi-
ences determined to have the largest number of lis-
teners, viewers, or users as determined by the 
Arbitron or Nielsen rating systems.
(3) RELEVANT
CASE.—The term ‘‘relevant 
case’’ means the consolidated class action lawsuits 
entitled Pigford v. Veneman and Brewington v. 
Veneman (United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Civil Action Numbers 97–1978 
and 98–1693). 
(4) RELEVANT
REGION.—The term ‘‘relevant 
region’’ means the States of Alabama, Arkansas, 
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and 
West Virginia and the District of Columbia. 
Æ