PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

A bill to amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to provide funding for successful claimants following a determination on the merits of Pigford claims related to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5131-5132)

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 5, 2009

Amends the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to make it unlawful for a person to knowingly commit specified fraudulent acts relating to a Pigford claim (relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture). Subjects a violator to criminal fine and/or up to five years in prison.

Provides for: (1) access to the permanent judgment fund for additional claims payments or debt relief after the expenditure of amounts otherwise made available for claims payments; and (2) reasonable attorney fees, administrative costs, and expenses to be paid from such fund.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA

Committees

  • Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
2 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5131-5132)

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5131)

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.972 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.972 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.972 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.972 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources