Speaking on behalf of the Black farmers were Stephon J. Bowens, John Boyd,
James E. Tatum, George Hall, Lucius Abrams and Gary R. Grant. Mr. Bowens,
Executive Director, Land Loss Prevention Project, pointed out that from 1994 to
1999 the Office of Inspector General found that of the 17 settlement agreements
and 84 conciliation agreements reached with individual farmers complaining of
discrimination who did not participate in the class action suit, "…only 2
letters of reprimand have been issued." No one has been terminated for
discrimination against Black farmers and according to Ms. Rosalind Gray, she
does not have access to the applications of the Black farmers in the class
action suit which would allow her to determine whether disciplinary actions
should be taken against field representatives of USDA. However, latter in her
testimony she stated that they have already sent to the Justice Department names
of people filing false claims in the lawsuit. So the question is, does she have
access to the applications or not?

Here are some of the facts: 1. 40% of the applications in the lawsuit have
been rejected for such reasons as the "similarly situated white
farmer" that the Black farmer chose did not get a loan from FmHA in the
same year that the Black farmer applied.

2. Black farmers in some areas have been denied access to their own FmHA
records, yet their applications have been rejected based on information from
those same records. 3. Out of over 40,000 requests for applications there may be
no more than 100 Track B cases which could demand more than the $50,000 proposed
settlement. 4. The estimation of a farmer’s economic damages in Track B is being
based on his historical yields, while these same yields were made low because of
prior discrimination by the USDA before 1981. 5. Black farmers are being asked
to prove that they were discriminated against while most did not, and do not,
know what they were entitled to, because to the biased program information
delivery system.

In fact one of the House Committee members stated that he has never seen as
much red tape as in agricultural programs. He stated that "… there are
subheading and subparagraphs and special clauses that makes it almost impossible
to know what is going on." And from this hearing it was quite obvious that
not even this committee knew who was in charge of hiring or firing field staff
at the USDA or who had the authority to give the Black farmers a check if they
won their case of discrimination. Mr. John Boyd, President, National Black
Farmers Association, recommended the county committee system be modernized by
"…converting all county non-Federal FSA positions, including county
executive directors, to Federal status…" At present USDA programs are
administered by local county staff that are appointed or dismissed by a county
committee that is made up of "good old boys", with a token Black
farmer every now and then who does not have a vote. In other words, we have a
clear case of taxation without representation where Black people’s tax money is
given away by white men to each other in the face of a Black man who is supposed
to smile.

Mr. James Tatum, representing the Rural America Association of Community
Based Organizations, pointed out that the USDA have failed miserably in its
delivery of information and program benefits to Black farmers. He stated that
"…problems of Civil Rights and discrimination are not new and are not
unknown at USDA. Studies and reports have documented the problems dating back
from 1965 through 1997. Despite this documentation and open discussions about
the need to eliminate discrimination in program delivery and employment, it
continues to exist to a large degree unabated at USDA."

Mr. Lucius Abrams, one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, basically
pleaded to the committee that somebody do something because the Black farmers in
this lawsuit are suffering more now from the hands of USDA officials and local
lenders than they were suffering before the lawsuit. He stated that he could not
understand how this country could set back and allow this type of persecution,
misrepresentation, false promises and out right lies to continue.

Mr. George Hall, a farmer from Alabama, read the letter which denied his son
a portion of the settlement. Mr. Hall said that he was confused because the
letter denied him on the basis that he did not prove that he had applied for a
loan even though that same letter admitted earlier that he had applied for a
loan. Everyone in attendance was also confused although there were only two
committee members present to hear the farmers while there were over nine present
to hear the USDA’s side of the story.

Many Black farmers who had just been to Washington in September for the
Congressional Black Caucus, traveled again to Washington, DC at their own
expense to attend this hearing only to be snubbed by the House of
Representatives Agricultural committee. Out of nine committee members who were
present to hear the presentation from the USDA, only two of them elected to stay
and hear what the Black farmers had to say. This is the same, turning a
"deaf ear" to the Black community that has caused so much distrust for
those charged with weighing the balance for justice.

Mr. Gary Grant, President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist
Association, seemed to sum up the sentiment of the Black farmers by stating,
"This whole class action settlement is a farce and a sham. The harrowing
stories continue to come in; USDA former officials being trained to complete the
packages of the farmers and in some states telling the farmer, ‘I know your
case. There is no need for you to apply.’ " Many Black farmers were denied
loan applications in the past from these same officials who told Black farmers
that then need not apply because they had given out all the money to their white
friends. He further stated that "…the so called $50,000, which USDA and
its Civil Rights Department have convinced the rest of the nation that Black
farmers have already gotten, is no where near an amount to put any farmer back
into farming nor remove the "bad" debt and bad credit gained from this
racist government agency’s mess." Mr. Grant further questioned whether the
government through its persistent slaps in the face was trying to provoke
violence, because the Black farmers are running out of "cheeks to
turn".

Mr. Gary Grant brought along Dr. Ridgely Muhammad, the Agricultural Economist
for B.F.A.A. with detailed grafts and charts to prove his case, but the
committee felt obligated to cut the farmers’ presentations short and run out.
This was blatant slap in the face considering how much time they gave one USDA
official earlier that morning. These charts were to serve to give hands on
information to further educate, especially committee members, of the history and
current plight of Black farmers and their loss of land at the hands of the USDA
and its employees.

The charts and graphs would have shown them how the USDA changed definitions
of farm ownership to hide the loss of black farm land. The tables would have
shown them how almost $1 million of loan money earmarked for Black farmers in
one south Georgia county wound up in the hands of five white farmers. The tables
would have shown them how all of the Black farmers that dealt with FmHA were put
out of business while white farmers are still farming with hundreds of thousands
of tax payers money in there pockets, a gift from the USDA. He brought graphs
that would have shown them how the southern white farmers weathered the debt
crisis of the early 1980’s better than there Midwestern counterparts, because
they had access to funds earmarked for Black farmers and could steal Black
farmers’ land while the USDA turned its back. The committee did not want the
hidden agenda of the government exposed, which has been to deprive Black people
of their land, herd them in the cities, then poison them slowly with chemically
treated and genetically engineered food.

The "crisis" of the Black farmer is over. "Crisis" means
"… the turning point for better or worse in an acute disease or
fever." Mr. Gary Grant pointed out that Mr. Glickman and Mr. Al Gore were
in the House in the early 1980’s when the crisis of the Black farmer was
presented to them by Representative Towns from New York. They did nothing then
and they are stalling now. Most of the 30,000 are more applicants for this
lawsuit have already been put out of farming and put out to pasture. This
settlement will not bring them out of retirement nor will it be an incentive for
their children or grand children to enter this once noble occupation.

The Black farmers’ lawsuit settlement tendered on November 3, 1998 ("Black
Tuesday") in response to the large black turnout at the polls, although
a step in the right direction, is not a just, equitable and reasonable solution
to repairing an industry that was destroyed by the U.S.D.A. Black farmers
who did nothing wrong, but work hard and trust their government, were
deprived of life, liberty and property while their children who were forced into
the cities were being shot down and cast into prisons as "menaces 2
society". The "Crisis of the Black farmer" is over. The
question now becomes, "And what will his city cousins eat?"

If you have any questions, please e-mail Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad at
drridge@bellsouth.net