I come to the floor troubled, considerably troubled by--and in opposition to the rule--by this Pigford settlement proposal that we've heard about just now. It was brought to my attention sometime after I was elected to Congress. I had a number of Iowa USDA employees that were deployed to Washington, D.C., and other locations to assist in administering the Pigford I settlement. They distributed $1.05 billion to African American farmers, some of whom were discriminated against. All of those that were discriminated against I would agree, I think with all of my colleagues, that they should be compensated to the degree that is practicable by law. However, as I sat down with the individuals that were administering the Pigford I settlement, and one of them came back with a box of file forms and applications sick to his stomach and told me that he had been compelled to engage in a practice that he believed was 75 percent fraudulent at a minimum, I thought that was a high and shocking number and put the information away until it emerged again and again in this Congress.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker expresses opposition to the Pigford settlement proposal and raises concerns about fraud in its administration.
Share
More from Steve King
I was unable to vote on August 22, 2020 due to not being in DC. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 179; ``no'' on rollcall No. 180; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 181; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 182. MEMBERS…
I was unable to vote on January 30, 2020, because of the need to travel back to Iowa. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 33; ``no'' on rollcall No. 34. Personal Explanation
I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 135, beginning on line 3, strike ``date on which the major disaster or…





