[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 171 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8107-H8129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 732.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 577 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 732.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1504
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole
[[Page H8108]]
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
732) to limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which
the United States is a party, and for other purposes, with Mr. Lucas in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Last Congress, the House Judiciary Committee commenced an
investigation into the Obama Justice Department's pattern or practice
of requiring settling defendants to donate money to third-party groups.
In its final 2 years, the Obama DOJ directed nearly $1 billion to third
parties entirely outside of Congress' spending and oversight authority.
All along, the Obama Justice Department strained to deny the obvious
problem: that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities to
play favorites. Deputy Associate Attorney General Geoffrey Graber
testified that the Department was not ``in the business of picking and
choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under
the agreement.''
But internal DOJ documents tell a different story. They show that,
contrary to Graber's sworn testimony, the donation provisions were
structured to aid the Obama administration's political friends and
exclude conservative groups.
From the outset, Graber's boss, Associate Attorney General Tony West,
was keenly interested in choosing the organizations that would receive
settlement money. In the lead-up to the first troubling settlement,
West's deputy emailed the Office of Legal Counsel asking: ``Can you
explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an
organization of our choosing?''
Explaining the final settlement to the press team, West's deputy
wrote that the donation provisions require banks to ``make donations to
categories of entities we have specified, as opposed to what the bank
might normally choose to donate to.''
Sure enough, Congress received testimony, in 2016, that the donation
beneficiaries were Obama administration allies. These include the
Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls
himself a bank terrorist.
But aiding their political allies was only the half of it. The
evidence of the Obama DOJ's abuse of power shows that Tony West's team
went out of its way to exclude conservative groups.
On July 8, 2014, 6 days before DOJ finalized its settlement with
Citi, Tony West's top deputy circulated a draft of the agreement's
mandatory donation terms. A senior official from the Office of Access
to Justice, who had been working closely with Tony West to direct
settlement money to legal aid organizations, responded, requesting a
word change.
She explained that the rewording would achieve the aim of ``not
allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal
Foundation,'' which she explained, ``does conservative property-rights
free legal services.'' The change was made.
It is not every day in congressional investigations that we find a
smoking gun. Here we have it.
Unfortunately, the chief architect of this outrage was lauded, not
punished. The recipients of the donations, from which PLF was excluded,
circulated an email seeking ways to recognize ``Tony West who, by all
accounts, was the one person most responsible for including the
donation provisions.''
One organization replied: ``Frankly, I would be willing to have us
build a Tony West statue and then we could bow down to this statue each
day after we get our $200,000-plus.''
Mr. West's abuse of power stands in stark contrast to the reassertion
of integrity by the current Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Attorney
General Sessions shut down the use of mandatory donations to benefit
outside groups, barring the practice through a policy directive issued
earlier this year.
This legislation, however, remains necessary because history shows
that we cannot rely on the current DOJ policy remaining in place. In
point of fact, in 2009, the incoming Obama administration reversed
course from previous DOJ guidance that had started imposing limits on
settlement payments to nonvictims. This reversal led to the abuses I
highlighted.
H.R. 732 is a bipartisan bill that would make the ban on settlement
payments to nonvictim third parties binding on future administrations.
The bill makes clear that payments to provide restitution for actual
harm directly caused, including harm to the environment, are permitted.
It was obvious, from the outset, that mandatory donation provisions
create opportunities for abuse; that such abuses actually occurred is
now proven.
Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to
support this good governance measure, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act would prohibit the
Federal Government from entering into or enforcing any settlement
agreement requiring donations to remediate harms that are not
``directly and proximately'' caused by a wrongdoer's unlawful conduct.
I, regretfully, oppose this measure for several reasons. To begin
with, the bill would prohibit these types of settlement agreements even
though they have been successfully used to remedy various harms,
particularly those caused by reckless corporate actors.
For example, these settlement agreements helped facilitate an
effective and comprehensive response to the predatory and fraudulent
mortgage lending activities of financial institutions that nearly
caused the economic collapse of our Nation, and that led to the Great
Recession.
In fact, settlement agreements with two of these culpable financial
institutions, Bank of America and Citigroup, required a donation of
less than 1 percent of the overall settlement amount to fund
foreclosure prevention and remediation programs to help harmed
consumers.
Now, contrary to the majority's claim, the Justice Department did not
use any of these settlement agreements to fund active groups.
Notwithstanding the production of hundreds of pages of documents by the
Justice Department, along with hundreds of pages of documents produced
by private parties, we have not seen a shred of evidence that the
government included unlawful or politically motivated terms in its
settlement agreements with Bank of America or Citigroup.
The majority also asserts that these settlement agreements are used
by the Justice Department and other agencies to circumvent the
congressional appropriations process. But existing law already prevents
agencies from augmenting their own funds.
By law, donations included in settlement agreements must have a clear
nexus to the prosecutorial objectives of the enforcement agency. And
both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional
Research Service have concluded that settlement agreements providing
for secondary remediation do not violate Congress' constitutional power
of the purse.
Finally, H.R. 732 would prevent the remediation of systemic harms in
civil and criminal enforcement actions.
These settlement agreements allow parties to resolve their civil or
criminal liability by voluntarily remediating the harms caused by their
unlawful conduct. For some types of unlawful conduct, such as
discrimination based on race or religion, secondary remediation of
harms may be the only remedy available for systemic violations of the
law.
{time} 1515
The victims of such conduct are typically not themselves parties to
the underlying action. Therefore, secondary remediation in the form of
voluntary compliance and training programs serves as an important tool
in these cases to protect victims of discrimination. Yet H.R. 732 would
effectively prohibit such relief.
Given these serious problems and some others presented by the bill, I
strongly am led to oppose H.R. 732.
[[Page H8109]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At this time, I would like to include in the Record a number of
exhibits:
Exhibit A, in which under oath we had testimony that said the
Department of Justice did not want to be in the business of picking or
choosing organizations that may or may not receive any funding under an
agreement.
Yet, exhibit B, in which the number three at Department of Justice
under President Obama said, ``Can you explain to Tony the best way to
allocate money toward organizations of our choosing,'' in a $9 billion
settlement.
And in exhibit C, in which they specifically said they had concerns,
including not allowing Citibank to pick a statewide intermediary like
Pacific Legal Foundation that does conservative causes.
exhibit a
Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, let me just add that this
committee will not stand silent, nor will, I am sure, the
Financial Service Committee, and you can expect that this
will escalate if you do not provide the documentation that we
requested over 2 months ago.
Secondly, did anyone at the Department of Justice ever
consider the serious appearance of impropriety in requiring
banks to make available to activist organizations the lion's
share of funding that Congress has previously cut off to
them? That is one of the reasons why we want to see the
communications. We want to know what considerations went into
making this decision to take this action.
Mr. GRABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, understand the
concern. And I can tell you that one of the reasons that the
Department wanted to use a preexisting list, the one that I
believe you are referring to, the HUD approved counseling
agency list, is because that list is preexisting. The
Department did not want to be in the business of picking and
choosing which organization may or may not receive any
funding under the agreement.
Chairman GOODLATTE. No, but it is the Congress'
responsibility to appropriate funds, and the Congress'
responsibility to be picking and choosing who gets
appropriations for expenditures. And we want to know what
connection there is between the fact that cuts were made and
. . .
exhibit b
From: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG)
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:58 AM
To (OLC); Seitz, Virginia A (OLC)
Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG); Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG) (OLC)
Subject: back again with questions
I'm sorry to be a pest. We keep tinkering with the
settlement agreement and I want to make sure that we are
doing it right. I also am not sure that I am a good messenger
between you and Tony because he asks me follow up questions
that I'm not sure I can answer. Do you have a few minutes
today to meet with Tony and let him ask you questions
directly?
Here are our current issues:
Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money
toward an organization of our choosing? We have been
discussing having the agreement provide that JPM agreed to
pay $9 billion but that, if, by the time we sign the
settlement agreement, JPM has given $60 million to x
organization, they will only have to pay $8.04 billion. I
think that's ok. We understand that we would have no control
over what x organization does with the money.
Thanks
exhibit c part i
From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah (OAAG)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:07 PM
To: (A2J)
Subject: RE: new language
Thanks! We made the proposal. They had one question
whenever you have a moment.
From: (A2J)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:47 AM
To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)
Subject: RE: new language
You go girl. The prospective settlement was on NPR this
morning, in case you didn't have your radio on . . .
Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:42 AM
To: (A2J)
Subject: RE: new language
Cool. I will keep you posted.
From (A2J)
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:34 AM
To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)
Cc (A2J)
Subject: RE: new language
Importance: High
Got it. Ok, this will hopefully address the concerns we'd
like to avert:
Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account
(IOLTA) organizations (or other statewide bar-association
affiliated intermediaries) that provide funds to legal aid
organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention legal
assistance and community redevelopment legal assistance.
Concerns include: a) not allowing Citi to pick a statewide
intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation (does
conservative property-rights free legal services) or a
statewide pro bono entity (will conflict out of most
meaningful foreclosure legal aid) we are more likely to get
the right result from a state bar association affiliated
entity; b) making
exhibit c part II
sure that it's legal assistance provided, not a scenario
where the bank can direct IOLTA or other intermediary to give
to even a legal aid organization but to do only housing
counseling, for example, under the umbrella ``foreclosure
prevention assistance.''
This get you closer?
Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:10 PM
To (A2J)
Subject: new language
H
I think we are going to have to be as thin as possible
here, not add new definitions, and not limit to particular
states. What do you think about the following:
Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account
(IOLTA) organizations or other statewide intermediaries that
provide funds to legal aid organizations, to be used for
foreclosure prevention assistance and community redevelopment
assistance.
Regards,
Maame
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong
Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General
Office of the Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
exhibit d
From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah (OAAG)
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 4:01 PM
To: Canale, Ellen (OPA)
Subject: ``stretching by the banks''
Hi Ellen
Here are some examples of consumer relief items that we
believe require the banks to do more than they would be
economically motivated to do on their own in Citi:
Make donations to categories of entities we have specified
(as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate
to).
I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have questions
or need more. Big picture, we are requiring the bank to
change its behavior and at the very least, choose the actions
we prefer among various options that it might be economically
motivated to take. This in itself is valuable because we are
pushing them to focus their activities on the borrowers and
areas and relief of most concern to us and that we believe
will have the greatest impact in redressing the harm their
actions caused to consumers and communities.
Thanks!
Maame
exhibit e
From: Martinez, Brian (OAAG)
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:04 PM
To: Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG)
Subject: Consumer Relief
Geoff, this is what we received from HUD a little while
ago.
From: Smith, Damon Y
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:06 PM
To: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG)
Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG)
Subject: RE: update for Tony?
Attached is a clean and redline of where we are. Don't be
afraid of the extent of the redline. Much of it is shifting
around and the preamble, footnotes and other language are all
new so we're just getting down to negotiating it.
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Damon
From: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG)
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Smith, Damon Y (HUD)
Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG)
Subject: update for Tony?
Right after I sent my email, Tony called me asking for an
update, especially on where we are on liquidated damages and
on one or more third party beneficiaries. Can you get on a
call with Tony (and me) and update him? I'm copying Brian to
assist in scheduling. Let me know if you think Sec. Donovan
needs to be included, but I'm sure that would complicate
scheduling and Tony really just want to know where things
are.
Exhibit F
From (A2J)
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:28 AM
To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)
Cc (A2J)
Subject Memo re: bank settlement
Hi Maame,
Hope all is well and that you are settling in on the 5th
floor.
We wanted to give you a heads up that we will be sending a
memo your way today. By way of background, Cindy contacte
yesterday about an issue that we've been discussing with Tony
for months and one that we've been meaning to connect with
you on adding language that incorporates legal aid into the
Department's large bank settlement agreements (as part of
consumer/victim relief). We understand that Tony wants a
quick
[[Page H8110]]
turnaround on this, so please feel free to reach out to us
with any questions.
Best,
an
Senior Counsel
Access to Justice Initiative
U.S. Department of Justice
Exhibit G
DELIBERATIVE AND PRE-DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
U.S. Department of Justice
MEMORANDUM
To: Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong
From: an
Date: June 23, 2014
Subject: Including Legal Aid Organizations in Distribution of
Bank Settlement Funds
As requested by Associate Attorney General Tony West, ATJ
has researched options for incorporating legal aid into the
Department's large bank settlement agreements. Based on our
current understanding of the potential scale, we identified
three options that would best align with organizational
capacity and litigation goals, and achieve the ASG's goal of
a distribution mechanism that reaches a broad coalition of
legal aid organizations.
The options listed below could be pursued either separately
or in some combination. As set out below, we recommend a
combination of options l and 2:
1) distribute the majority of funds set aside for legal aid
to IOLTA foundations; and
2) reserve sufficient funds for a national organization to
establish Consumer Protection Fellowships in specific states
pursuant to the settlement, to focus on foreclosure
prevention solutions that help people keep their homes and
prevent future mortgage abuses.
IOLTA foundations are especially appropriate intermediaries
in cases involving banks because a) they have capacity to
effectively distribute large sums of money; and b) the
historically low bank Interest rates from the beginning of
2008 to the present, have meant the loss of hundreds of
millions of dollars to legal aid programs nationally, while
the need for free legal services has grown.
Legal aid offices respond to the wide range of legal
problems faced by low-income communities in distress, with
lawyers working on cases involving housing and consumer
protection as well as family law matters and access to public
benefits. Often clients have multiple, interrelated legal
problems, such as a loss of housing that may exacerbate or
lead to other debt problems or an acute need to access other
public benefits. Some larger organizations also have
expertise in broader community development work, like working
on behalf of citizen groups to negotiate community benefits
agreements (such as requiring development to include
affordable housing or prioritize local labor). Typically, as
non-profit organizations subject to oversight by boards of
directors, legal aid offices have a formal process for
setting local priorities with oversight and input from their
boards. It could be logistically difficult for large scale
funding through IOLTA to have subject matter restrictions on
it (such as only for housing cases). Like most IOLTA funding,
and like federal funds from the Legal Services Corporation,
it is best to have as few strings as possible--both to
respect established local priorities and avoid overly
burdensome accounting. However, for the smaller portion of
funding in option 2, it makes sense to be targeted both as to
geography and subject matter.
Finally, while we recommend as few restrictions as possible
on funding going to legal aid organizations, we note that
some organizations already live with funding restrictions--
such as not being allowed to pursue class actions. If, to
build support for these ideas generally, there is a need to
fashion reasonable restrictions, then ATJ can help with
further development of such options.
Exhibit H
From: Bob LeClair
To: Charles Dunlap; david; Amy Sings in the Timber; Judith
Baker; Shannon Scruggs; Amy Johnson; Libhart, Stephanie
S.; Choy, Stephanie; Norsworthy, Nancy; Alvaro Flores;
comalley; lphillips
Cc: Groudine, Beverly
Subject: RE: NAIP letter to Tony West at DOJ
Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 2:32:43 PM
Great idea! We should do a resolution, and we also should
do some formal plaque that would say ``for outstanding
service'' or other such words.
Frankly, I would be willing to have us build a statue and
then we could bow down to this statue each day after we get
our $200,000+.
Heap big fun!
Bob LeClair.
From; Charles Dunlap
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:21 PM
To: david; Amy Sings in the Timber; Judith Baker; Shannon
Scruggs; Amy Johnson; Libhart, Stephanie S.; Bob LeClair;
Choy, Stephanie; Norsworthy, Nancy; Alvaro Flores;
comalley; lphillips
Cc: Groudine, Beverly
Subject: NAIP letter to Tony West at DOJ
Hi NAIP Board members. Now that it has been more than 24
hours for us all to try and digest the Bank of America
settlement, I would like to discuss ways we might want to
recognize and show appreciation for the Department of Justice
and specifically Associate Attorney General Tony West who by
all accounts was the one person most responsible for
including the IOLTA provisions. I am in the process of
sending him a thank you letter today on behalf of NAIP and
all of its members. I also wanted to see if there are any
other ideas to honor him and the DOJ in a more meaningful way
(resolution, other award, ceremony at the midyear?) and am
looking for any creative ideas to try and show him how
important this is to our community and more importantly what
a huge impact it will have on those in need. Any ideas are
appreciated. Thanks again for your suggestions.
Chuck
INDIANA BAR
Charles R. Dunlap
Executive Director
Exhibit I Part I
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
The Leadership Conference
Memorandum
TO: Elizabeth Taylor, US Department of Justice
FROM The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
RE: JPMorgan Chase Toxic MBS Accountability in Prince William
County, VA
DATE: November 8, 2013
Thank you for taking my call earlier today. I thought our
conversation was helpful, and I appreciate your willingness
to hear my suggestions regarding a ``pilot project on
community reinvestment'' in Prince William County, Virginia,
as an element of the anticipated JPMorgan Chase settlement.
For the record, it is important that I offer the following
disclaimer: this proposal is made on our own initiative, and
without the encouragement, approval, or suggestion by either
you or the Department of Justice.
By way of background, The Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights is the nation's leading civil and human
coalition. We have been actively involved for many years in
housing and lending policies both before and in the wake of
nation's financial crisis. As I mentioned when we spoke, we
are working with several community-based organizations in
Prince William County that seek to promote the public
interest through leveraged investments in neighborhoods that
have been hard hit by home foreclosures.
For example, VOICE, a broad-based citizens organization
with 50 religious and community institution members in
Northern Virginia, has asked The Leadership Conference to
assist them in their fight to get JPMorgan to reinvest a
portion of the more than $300 million in equity it stripped
from Prince William County, VA communities and families
through predatory loans, toxic Mortgage-backed Securities
(MBSs), and foreclosures (see attached one-page summary of JP
Morgan's Prince William track record).
We are asking DOJ officials negotiating with JPMorgan Chase
to consider including in any settlement significant equity
capital or grant funds to promote and capitalize a Prince
William County Restoration Fund (see attached concept paper)
which will revitalize blighted neighborhoods, rebuild
homeownership, and address
exhibit I Part II
Metro IAF
VOICE for justice
National Community Restoration Fund
JP Morgan Chase & Federal Government MBS Settlement
Goal: Require JPMorgan Chase to reinvest some of the equity
its predatory mortgages stripped from communities as part of
the US Department of Justice's proposed $13 Billion
Settlement with JPMorgan over regulatory issues and mortgage-
backed securities (MBSs).
Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of 22 broad-
based citizens organizations in the East, Midwest, and South,
proposes that this occur in one of two ways;
Ideal Proposal: The Federal Government should require
JPMorgan Chase to pay $2 billion in cash to capitalize a
National Community Restoration Fund that would help restore
communities and be available on a competitive basis. The
National Restoration Fund could capitalize 50 local community
restoration equity funds to rebuild communities across the
country that were destroyed by JPMorgan's predatory loans and
toxic MBSs.
Alternative Proposal: The Federal Government should include
in its consent agreement, as part of the consumer relief
portion, a requirement that JPMorgan Chase capitalize local
community restoration equity funds through significant grants
(at least $10 million+ each) or Equity Equivalent (EQ2)
investments over 20+ years on a non-recourse basis at very
low interest rates (0%-1%) to rebuild communities devastated
by foreclosure. JPMorgan Chase could be given enhanced credit
towards its settlement requirements for this type of grant or
investment.
Background: JPMorgan Chase's predatory loans--packaged into
toxic MBSs--did not just hurt investors and individual
homeowners; they destroyed entire communities for which
JPMorgan should be held accountable to reinvest. MBSs allowed
predatory lenders to originate trillions of dollars of sub-
prime loans that were structured to fail, targeted at low-
wealth and minority borrowers, and concentrated In low-income
neighborhoods in cities and aging suburbs throughout the US.
The cumulative effect of these failed mortgages was to:
Leave large-numbers of blighted and vacant homes that
depress property values,
[[Page H8111]]
preventing remaining homeowners from securing a loan
modification because they are underwater. These properties
also attract crime and other public safety issues;
Devastate homeownership rates, replacing owners with
renters vulnerable to negligent absentee investors and
destabilizing neighborhoods;
Create pressures on available affordable rental housing as
demand rises from families recently foreclosed, raising rents
and making rental housing unaffordable;
Deny large swaths of former homeowners, who are stuck in
high-priced rental housing,
Exhibit J
Best,
Peter J. Kadzik
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legislative Affairs
From: Martin Trimble
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 6:13 PM
To: Kadzik, Peter J (OLA)
Cc: Luke Albee; Michelle Malwurm; Clyde Ellis; Keith Savage;
Wilson Michael; Frank McMillan
Subject: VOICE/Metro IAF Meeting with US Deputy Attorney
General Tony West
Mr. Kadzik: It was good to talk with you on Wednesday.
Thank you for agreeing to speak with US Deputy Attorney
General Tony West about meeting with VOICE--Virginians
Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement Leaders--to
discuss VOICE & Metro Industrial Areas Foundation's (Metro
IAF) proposal to create a $5 Billion National Community
Equity Restoration Fund to rebuild communities devastated by
predatory loans and toxic Mortgage Backed Securities issued
by financial institutions.
The VOICE-Metro IAF National Community Equity Restoration
Fund concept paper is attached. As you know, VOICE worked
with Senator Mark Warner, Federal officials, and other allies
to get ``grants to capitalize community equity restoration
funds'' included as one way JP Morgan Chase can fulfill its
consumer relief obligations under the Department of Justice-
JP Morgan Chase $13 billion toxic Mortgage Backed Securities
settlement. This precedent potentially creates a vital
resource to rebuild communities hard hit by predatory loans
and foreclosures. We will brief Deputy Attorney General West
on how community equity restoration funds established by
VOICE/Metro IAF sister groups are transforming blighted
communities on a large scale in Baltimore, New York,
Milwaukee as well as the VOICE restoration plan for Prince
William County, VA. VOICE & Metro IAF will make the case that
the Department of Justice should make ``grants to capitalize
community equity restoration funds'' mandatory in all future
settlements.
Below is background information on VOICE and its organizing
to hold financial institutions accountable for the predatory
loan and foreclosure crisis in Prince William County, VA as
well as Metro IAF. Watch this short video for the story about
VOICE's organizing: VOICE Foreclosure Organizing Video. The
concept paper has details on the effectiveness of community
equity restoration funds in rebuilding blighted communities.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to
talking with you again soon.
Sincerely,
Martin Paul Trimble
exhibit k
From: West, Tony (OAAG)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:51 PM
To: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG)
Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG); Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG)
Subject: RE: meeting with VOICE
Let's discuss later today.
From: Taylor, Elizabeth (OAAG)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:50 PM
To: West, Tony (OAAG)
Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG); Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG)
Subject: meeting with VOICE
I met today, on your behalf, with, a VOICE--Virginians
Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement. They would
like us to include in the consumer relief portion of the next
rmbs settlement a requirement that the bank contribute to a
National Community Equity Restoration Fund, which, in turn,
would capitalize community equity restoration funds in
communities across the country that were harmed by the banks'
creation and securitization of toxic mortgages. I explained
the limits of what we can do in a securities settlement,
including the facts that the suit is aimed at harm to
investors and that the federal government could not
administer such a fund. Still, proposal is According
to , this kind of community equity restoration fund has
been successful in developing affordable housing and
restoring blighted neighborhoods in New York, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, DC and Milwaukee. I will invite you and any of
us who are interested to come see the work they have done in
Baltimore and DC. Damon.
Damon
but says that BofA has already committed $10 million
to making low interest loans in Virginla. I'll try to find
out whether BofA is getting credit toward the NMS for this
money. claims that they shamed BofA into this by
storming their shareholder meeting. Perhaps we can discuss
this more when we meet this afternoon. I'll also scan the
proposal and send it around.
exhibit l citi settlement 7/14/14
Annex 2
E. Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers Trust
Account (IOLTA) organizations (or other statewide bar-
association affiliated intermediaries) that provide funds to
legal aid organizations, to be used for foreclosure
prevention legal assistance and community redevelopment legal
assistance E. $1.00 payment = $2.00 Credit* * *
Menu Item 4E Minimum = $15 million payment
F. Donations to HUD-approved housing counseling agencies to
provide foreclosure prevention assistance and other housing
counseling activities F. $1.00 payment = $2.00 Credit* * *
Menu Item 4F Minimum = $10 million payment
115% Early Incentive Credit for Menu Items 4A-F
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I thank Chairman Goodlatte for bringing forth this legislation.
Mr. Chair, I am a lawyer, like many of our members on the Judiciary
Committee. I served as a prosecutor and as a judge, and we have a lot
of those legal beagles on our Judiciary Committee.
Although I worked primarily in State court as a judge and a
prosecutor, I have always had great respect for those people in the
Justice Department who work on behalf of the people of the United
States in Federal court. However, over the last few years, my opinion
of the Justice Department has changed, and it has changed not for the
better.
It has changed because I see that the Justice Department is acting as
a political entity. I didn't say partisan entity. I said as a political
entity, making decisions that appear to be based on politics rather
than the law and policy.
This legislation does one thing: it tries to elevate the Justice
Department back to a nonpolitical entity, which it has, unfortunately,
in my opinion, become a political entity. It is unfortunate that it has
become that. Some of the things that the Justice Department has done,
and this legislation I think would prevent, would be to make sure that
the Justice Department does not become a political entity in
determining settlements of lawsuits that the Justice Department files
on behalf of the American public.
So what happens is that these lawsuits are settled, and then the
Justice Department tells the defendant: We the people are suing. You
contribute to this entity and this will all go away. This case will be
settled. There won't have to be a trial.
So that is what has been happening over the last few years.
In 2012, the Department of Justice forced Gibson Guitars to pay a
$50,000 ``community service payment'' to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, even though the Foundation was not a victim of the crime
that Gibson Guitars was involved in. It had no connection to that case.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation received a bigger windfall
again in 2012, when the government required British Petroleum--we all
remember the BP spill--to donate $2.5 billion to the Foundation over a
5-year period in connection with the criminal investigation of the Gulf
of Mexico oil spill.
Discretion on the part of the Department of Justice on where the
money goes smells, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't pass the smell test.
In 2006, the Department of Justice forced a wastewater plant that had
been accused of violating the Clean Water Act to give $1 million to the
United States Coast Guard Alumni Association. Now, I love the Coast
Guard. We probably all love the Coast Guard. But government shouldn't
be making a decision to give taxpayer money, or money, to any
association. It is political decisions that the Justice Department has
been making.
The wastewater treatment firm was also forced to pay another $1
million to the Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority in
Connecticut to fund unspecified environmental improvement projects.
A recent attack on the DOJ bank settlement with Goldman Sachs
required a $250 million fee to be assessed, financing donations toward
affordable housing. This is a political decision by the Justice
Department. And there are many other examples that we will put into the
Record. This should not be a Department of Justice decision on a
settlement. If they sue somebody and
[[Page H8112]]
they settle the case, the money should go to the victims of that
lawsuit. It should not go to the Department of Justice's discretion to
pick political entities.
Remember, I didn't say partisan. I just said political entities. Go
to the victim. Go to the Victims of Crime Act. Go to where crime
victims get funds. Go back to the U.S. Treasury, but the money should
not be discretionary with the Justice Department.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. POE of Texas. But let's take the politics, the decisionmaking,
and the credibility--or lack of credibility--of the Justice Department
in settling cases on behalf of the United States people, and take it
away from the Justice Department and put it where it is supposed to go:
to the victims of that lawsuit.
That is where it should go. And if it doesn't go there, then it
should go to the Victims of Crime Act, a Federal Government entity
where funds for criminal violations go into a fund. Or it should go to
the United States Treasury.
Remove the politics no matter who the President is. Remove the
politics of the Justice Department so they can regain credibility with
the American people for being involved in justice, not politics.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the House
Judiciary Committee, who is ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 732, the inaptly titled Stop
Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, which would flatly ban the
enforcement of any settlement agreement that seeks to remedy the
general harms caused by unlawful conduct.
This prohibition would broadly apply to all civil and criminal
settlements with limited exception, encroaching on the Justice
Department's longstanding legal authority to negotiate and enter
settlement agreements.
Since its establishment in 1870, the Justice Department has possessed
plenary authority to litigate on behalf of the government in all civil
and criminal litigation except as otherwise provided by law.
Since at least as early as 1888, the Supreme Court has upheld this
broad grant of authority, holding that it extends to settling
litigation on behalf of the government or making enforcement decisions
in light of priorities and resources.
In Heckler v. Chaney, for example, the Court held in 1985 that, in
many cases, enforcement decision within the Justice Department's
expertise make it ``far better equipped than the courts to deal with
the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.''
This rationale also extends to the terms of settlement agreements,
which ``involve numerous complicated technical issues as well as
important judgments respecting the use of limited prosecutorial
resources'' and are ``best left in the hands of expert agencies and
prosecutors, rather than dictated by Congress or the Federal courts,''
as environmental law professor Joel Mintz has noted.
H.R. 732 undermines this longstanding policy by strictly curtailing
the enforcement discretion of the Justice Department and the other
enforcement agencies when resolving a party's civil or criminal
liability on behalf of the Federal Government.
As the Justice Department observed last Congress in the context of a
substantively similar bill, ``limiting the Department's discretion to
negotiate appropriate terms of settlement, which are voluntary and
agreed to by the parties, may result in fewer settlement agreements,
protracted litigation, and delays for victims who need the relief.''
Without this discretionary authority, the Department concluded that,
``the government may not be able to adequately address the full scope
of the harms that a defendant's illegal actions caused.''
In contrary to the arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, despite
2 years of investigation by the Judiciary Committee into the Justice
Department's use of settlement agreements, no evidence was found to
show that the mortgage fraud settlements contain terms that were
politically motivated. But we did learn that the sole mission of the
Justice Department's settlements under the prior administration was to
aid the families whose economic security was jeopardized by reckless
Wall Street behavior and prevent them from losing their homes due to
fraudulent mortgage practices.
There are many examples where generalized harm is impossible to
calculate or impractical to quantify in the courts. Without this
ability by the Justice Department to enter into these settlement
agreements, corporate wrongdoers are going to be free to do whatever
they want.
I give you one example: Deepwater Horizon, which destroyed the
coastline. As part of that settlement, there was State-based cleanup
that was provided. There was funding for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation for remediation; things that were directly responsive to the
harm caused. But you couldn't quantify to an individual person, and
that is what this legislation will prevent.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If the minority has not gone through the discovery that we have, that
we placed in the Record, I will be glad to give Mr. Cicilline or anyone
else a copy.
I am just going to repeat, though, after receiving testimony that
they didn't pick winners and losers, what we are marking as exhibit B
and exhibit C make it clear they were, and specifically choosing, to
exclude a ``conservative group.''
I think the important things here, though, Mr. Chairman, are if they
want to have money in a settlement, such as the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy, they certainly could, as long as it directly provides aid to
the victims; which, of course, cleanup did. But when we look at these
others, one of the great things is if they want to put it into a
victim's fund as part of it, a government-controlled fund, they can if
they want.
If the Department of Justice wants specific authority the way they
do, for example, in water settlements, particularly related to Native
American Tribes, they offer a deal, they put one together, and, Mr.
Chairman, they come to Congress. This Congress, in the last Congress,
settled multiple longstanding disputes with Tribes. What is interesting
is they made sure the money went to those who had been harmed when they
came to Congress and said: Please codify this agreement.
But in the many agreements that seems to go on in the Obama
administration--and we now have the smoking gun of that--they made
political decisions. Making political decisions is why you have to put
this back in the light of day and with real congressional oversight.
What is amazing is, during the markup of this bill, there were a
number of Members of the other party who specifically talked about not
trusting the current occupant of the White House and the current
Attorney General. It baffles me that they would not want to take back
this authority knowing that the Department of Justice could bring to us
a request for a bill that would authorize a specific settlement that
could have outside groups or grant authority on a case-by-case basis.
{time} 1530
The reality is the slush fund system has to stop. That is why
Chairman Goodlatte's bringing this bill today was so critical.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. You have got a minority report you are putting in which
cites lists of abuses; is that correct?
Mr. ISSA. It is majority. Yes, you have copies of it.
Mr. COHEN. I just wondered, do you have in there all the things Chris
Christie did that came up in a hearing that we held in 2009 in our
committee showing the abuses of the system by Chris Christie?
The CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks to
the Chair, please.
[[Page H8113]]
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asks for a colloquy.
Although I don't have them, I am sure they prove the same point: that
the light of day, the cleanliness of sunlight, and congressional
oversight and appropriation would have protected against the abuses the
gentleman is probably describing.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pascrell will discuss it in more detail.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pascrell will go into this in some
detail.
But we held hearings on this, and we didn't have any support from the
other side of the aisle when we pointed out all of the abuses that were
going on in New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, with monitors being appointed
that were making $52 million--Mr. Ashcroft, in particular--other
monitors who had involvement in cases that Mr. Christie was involved
in, which his brother was involved in, and where money was given to Mr.
Christie's law school and other pet projects. Nobody on the other side
criticized it. It was only when they cared about Obama.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's points are good. I am afraid his
conclusion may be the part I have to differ slightly with, Mr.
Chairman.
The gentleman from Tennessee is right to note past and other
indiscretions. That is why we have this bill before you today. In fact,
it is why passage is so important.
We don't want to have anybody of either party--the current occupant
of the White House is from my party, a Republican. The current Attorney
General is from my party, a Republican and former Republican Senator.
The fact is that now is the time not to necessarily disparage any past
activity but to stop it.
We are not a body that is supposed to trust as much as we are a body
to have some trust and to verify. When we find wrongdoing, it is our
job to make sure it doesn't happen again. This bill, including the
comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, seeks to do that. I am
convinced that it is good for that reason, and it is even good for the
example that Mr. Cohen suggests.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 732.
This misguided legislation would restrict the government's flexibility
to resolve lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers and would make it
harder to provide a remedy to all those who are harmed by the company's
malfeasance.
Under well-established law, when settling claims with some corporate
defendants, the Department of Justice may seek to include among the
terms a contribution by the defendant to a third-party organization.
Because it is often difficult to identify each individual who was
harmed by the company's actions, particularly those who suffered the
secondary effects of such wrongdoing, these third-party payments are
intended to address the generalized harms caused by corporate bad
actors. But this bill would prohibit any payment to a party that is not
for restitution or to remedy a harm that is ``directly and
proximately'' caused by the defendant. Such restrictions will
needlessly hamper the Department of Justice's ability to efficiently
resolve claims and to provide relief to all those injured by a
defendant's actions.
For example, in the wake of the financial crisis, the Department of
Justice, under Attorney General Holder, sued several large banks whose
egregious misconduct destabilized the housing market and threw millions
of people out of their homes, with millions more placed on the brink of
foreclosure, all while the banks reaped massive profits. The banks
agreed to resolve these claims by paying record-setting fines to the
government in recognition of the tremendous damage they had caused.
Some of these voluntary agreements also included payments to housing
counseling agencies and legal aid organizations responsible for
assisting homeowners devastated by the foreclosure crisis that those
banks helped create. The Republican majority sneers at these nationally
recognized community organizations, however, and dismisses them as
nothing more than activist groups. Republicans are so concerned that
funds were going to organizations that help level the playing field
between corporations and individuals that they drafted this legislation
to prohibit the government from entering into a settlement that
provides for any third-party payments.
Homeowners and communities across the country are still struggling
with the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis, and the third-party
payments negotiated by the Obama administration have been vital in
helping both the direct victims and all those who suffered the
collateral consequences of the banks' misconduct.
Attorney General Sessions recently announced that his Justice
Department will not include such terms in the settlements it
negotiates. But supporters of this bill insist that we must tie the
hands of future administrations as well, weakening their ability to
efficiently resolve claims and preventing them from using this tool to
seek relief for the victims of corporate misdeeds.
This unnecessary and irresponsible legislation is yet another attempt
by the Republican majority to favor wealthy corporations over
individuals, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure I provide a little clarity.
We are not talking about leftwing, rightwing, or other groups who get
it. What we are talking about is a basic question of fungibility of
money.
If something has been done wrong and a judge or the Department of
Justice has X amount of determination of wrongdoing, the first question
is: How much of that money can get to the victims? In a perfect world,
the victims are made 100 percent whole. In a perfect world, 100 percent
of the money passes from the perpetrator to the victim.
The Department of Justice making a decision not to a left- or
rightwing group, but a political decision to give $1 million to the
Coast Guard, to their charitable foundation, was a decision that
clearly was not part of the mitigation but, rather, a general
charitable decision. That was $1 million that did not go to the victim,
did not go to the general Treasury, but it went to the whims of a
bureaucrat.
We seek to make sure that, if that is an appropriate action, they
come to Congress with that and not decide that charity begins with some
unelected individual in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 732, which would prohibit
the U.S. Government from entering into settlement agreements or
enforcing settlement agreements if the settlement agreement includes a
term that provides a payment to be made to a third party. In the class
action context, these donations are known as cy-pres.
Under existing laws, settlements from Federal enforcement actions can
include payments to third parties to advance programs that assist with
recovery, benefits, and relief for communities harmed by lawbreakers to
the extent such payments further the objectives of the enforcement
action. This bill would cut that ability off. It cuts off any payments
to third parties other than individualized restitution and other forms
of direct payment for actual harm. That restriction would handcuff
Federal enforcement officials from actually doing justice.
This legislation arose out of the Wall Street too-big-to-fail episode
in 2008, which resulted in the Great Recession, where millions of
Americans lost their homes to foreclosure because of the actions of
these too-big-to-fail banks insofar as the subprime mortgage crisis is
concerned.
So the Department of Justice sued these big banks, which, by the way,
[[Page H8114]]
have continued to just get bigger and bigger after they received their
Wall Street bailout, and the American people who lost their homes did
not receive a bailout.
This legislation is to protect those same banks, and I would add that
we have got Steve Mnuchin now as the head of the Treasury Department in
the Trump administration. So this legislation is in keeping with that
which would protect and coddle these Wall Street thugs who have now
ascended to the seat of government and look to lock down their control.
With this legislation, they prevent themselves from being sued.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are complicit. They support
too big to fail. They support the big banks. It is at the expense of
the little guy, the people who work hard every day working for a
salary, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, which seems to be
harder and harder to do these days because of the legislation that this
Congress passes.
This is just another in a long line of pieces of legislation that
coddles and protects those who really need no protection. They should
be under the jail for what they have done to the American people.
I fight against this kind of legislation. It is wrong for America,
and it is wrong for its citizens. It is great for the big banks.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in short response.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes the obvious is missed in the debate. The
gentleman from Georgia talks about locking down power. Quite frankly,
Republicans do have a majority in the House and a slim majority in the
Senate, and the current occupant of the White House is from my party.
So when we are trying to reduce potential misconduct by the executive
branch, we are not doing it to take any money away.
As a matter of fact, this law would clearly cause more money to flow
from the same amount of initial payment, more money to flow to the
victims. So we are trying to flow more money to the victims. We are in
no way reducing any aspect of settlements other than, if the current
occupant of the White House, the President, and the Attorney General
want to give to the charity of their choice, they can either do it with
their own money or they can come to Congress for authority.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, the
same Federal agency that obtained benefits for the homeowners who were
hurt by the excesses of the big banks, that Justice Department is now
controlled by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who is not very keen on
trying to recover damages on behalf of the people. If he has to get
permission from Steve Mnuchin of the Treasury Department to do it, they
work so hand in hand, you know that there is not going to be any relief
for the homeowners of this country.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Chairman Goodlatte, I
start by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte for
acknowledging the actions that were taken by the Governor of New Jersey
when he was the U.S. attorney back in 2006 to 2007.
By the way, the former Justice Department was not even in existence
yet.
I agree with much, on both sides, of what has been said here, but I
think we are missing the point. The legislation is needed to prohibit
this from happening again.
Congressman Poe, the gentleman from Texas, wants to take the
political preference out of the Justice Department. He is absolutely
correct, I agree, but not just about where the money is going to go.
We have a major problem here. I have been shouting from the rooftops
about the need to reform the Justice Department's settlement agreement
process for almost a decade on this floor.
When we talk about lawsuits being settled, deferred prosecutions are
to get rid of the defendant so that the defendant, at the cost of doing
business, pays a fine. That is how it is done. This bill does nothing
about that--zero.
{time} 1545
Many of the corporations that stood before the courts--and I am not a
lawyer, as most of you guys and gals are--they stood before the courts
for 15 years, representing those corporations, and what they got out of
it was: Look, we are going to slap you on the wrist. We are going to
give you a little fine. At that time, you can give the money to whoever
you wish. And then you go away. Nobody is prosecuted. Nobody goes to
jail. Nobody is going to go to jail with these banks that cheated
middle class folks. Nobody. Guaranteed.
But under the guise of ``ensuring accountability,'' H.R. 732 is a
political exercise missing real reprimand for these practices, reforms
to the system, or redress to actual victims.
For years, we have known deferred prosecution agreements get out of
hand, regardless of whether there is a Democrat running the Presidency
or a Republican. So for anybody to stand up there and just say this was
Obama's problem, they don't know history.
I suggested a modest reform to improve the transparency of these
agreements. I was rebuffed by some of the very people who are in this
room.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. There is much to be said here, but if we remember the
Bristol-Myers Squibb case, they avoided prosecution for securities
fraud in exchange for $5 million to the Governor's law school alma
mater. Now, that is what is going on.
Mr. Chairman, you don't accept that. If you are on the Judiciary
Committee, you can't accept that either. You have got to be kidding me.
To allow the courts to do something like this--and any administration,
Democrat or Republican, to go along with this--no wonder the people
have little faith in the justice system in the United States of
America.
I simply want fairness, Mr. Chairman. I have asked for it many times.
This is not a new subject to me, and I will be back talking about it
again.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to agree with the gentleman
from New Jersey. The idea that you can pay a fine to get out from
underneath criminal prosecution is one that I would like to see either
eclipsed to where it is almost invisible and rarely used or done away
with altogether. I would certainly agree to join with the gentleman in
finding further prohibitions to that practice.
It has been too often that a corporation able to pay large amounts of
money not only escapes its actions, but, of course, it escapes the
prosecution of key individuals who may, in some cases, be responsible
for the loss of life and/or health.
So I want to join with the gentleman from New Jersey. That is not
what this bill is about. It doesn't deal with it, nor does it fail to
deal with it. It is not the subject of the bill.
I urge the gentleman, who does agree with a portion of what we have
to say, to work with me. I will be happy to be his cosponsor on a piece
of legislation to try to curtail that practice.
Today, we are trying to curtail a practice in which we have examples
of both Republicans and Democrats in the Office of the Attorney
General, their justice departments, from making settlements that seem
to have political bias. And that is what we are here to stop.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I would only offer to say that there is
not one Judiciary Committee Democrat on this so-called bipartisan bill.
That is where you first start the bipartisanship: you work with members
who may, in fact, believe that some of the issues that have been raised
by my
[[Page H8115]]
good friend from California may have merit.
Maybe this bill could have been drafted in a way that would have
responded to some of the failures, if there are some, such as evidenced
by our good friend from New Jersey, who recalled a lot of failures not
by Democrats but by Republicans. But when you start off with a bill
talking about slush funds, then you negate the good work of so many
organizations that have benefited to do the very good that the consent
decree was intended to do.
Today, I stood with the Latinas Against Domestic Violence. They came
here to stand against the violence against women that goes on and on
and on. Some of them may be in the gallery.
But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is: Why would we not want to give
that organization funds if they were in line to get dollars to help
prevent or intervene in the vileness of domestic violence?
So the idea that our friends on the other side are missing is the
value some of these entities have been given.
The only word that I have heard over and over again, as I have heard
from the administration, I have heard from the Attorney General, the
former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one word. In fact, I
think the English language has been limited to one word on the floor of
the House: Obama. I like to call him President Barack Obama. That is
the respect I give him.
Every legislative initiative has come forward on the shoulders of a
man who finishes 8 years, might I say, with a great deal of respect.
So here is what the bill the people are opposed to will do:
This bill would not give dollars to those victims who are harmed and
could engage in workplace monitoring, as well as other payments to
remedy generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the
recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace.
They wouldn't give it to an environmental remedy project, such as
needed cleanup efforts following the hazardous toxic pollutant spills
that spoil protected areas, preventing families and children from
enjoying recreation on State lands designed for public use.
They wouldn't give it to federally certified housing counseling
intermediaries by preventing housing counseling, relief to communities
that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken
the law.
I even hate to use the term ``slush.'' They are dollars out of a
consent decree that are managed and monitored by career professionals
to those in need.
So I am opposed to the underlying bill, and I will offer an
amendment.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will also be on this floor offering letters
opposing, again, not only this dastardly named legislation--who would
want to see this in the Congressional Record: slush fund--undermining,
as I said, the professionalism of our career employees in the DOJ and
undermining American citizens and nonprofits who are working every day
to make the life of America and America's children better.
This is a bad bill. Vote it down. It is not bipartisan. No Judiciary
Committee Democrat saw fit for it to be legitimate.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 732, the ``Stop
Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017.''
The proposed legislation, as currently drafted, is intended to
preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other than
restitution to identifiable victims.
Specifically, this legislation seeks to block federal law from
including payments that provide relief in negotiated settlements to
victims, such as in cases of predatory lending, employment
discrimination and pollution through environmental hazardous.
For the average American, this harmful bill translates as thwarting
settlement donations to legitimately harmed victims for:
1. Workplace monitoring, as well as, other payments to remedy
generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the recurrence
of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace;
2. Environmental remedy projects, such as needed clean-up efforts
following the hazardous, toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected
areas, preventing families and children from enjoying recreation time
on state lands designed for public use; or
3. Federally-certified housing counseling intermediaries by
preventing housing counseling relief to communities that have been
preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law.
This legislation fails to recognize the critical role and positive
benefits that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing
and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses, like those
that led to the housing and financial crisis, never happen again.
The Republican narrative suggests that this bill attempts to make
technical changes to the way that courts operate; but in reality, for
the everyday hard working American, this legislation along with its
companion bills (H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,'' and
H.R. 725, the ``Innocent Party Protection Act,'') is merely a concerted
effort to chip away at Americans' ability to seek justice and,
therefore, must be opposed.
This legislation is intended to cut off proceeds from government
settlements to ``third-party'' entities, which would stop a critical
source of funding for the nonprofit sector--including public interest
community organizations, foundations or trusts and other similar
groups.
Oftentimes, allowing these monies to be available to third-parties is
the best way to assure harmed persons will be made whole.
By barring government settlements from directing payments to non-
profit organizations, this legislation would thereby hamstring the
parties' ability to fully remedy the wrongdoing underlying the lawsuit.
Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review
and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.
The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating
consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.
H.R. 732 would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative
resources and scarce time, while opening the doors to industry
influence and obstruction in routine enforcement matters.
This legislation pushes the everyday hard working American to the
margins of the justice system by requiring restitution only in cases
with a showing of actual harm directly and proximately caused by the
party making the payment.
The bill's definition excludes any payment by a party to provide
restitution for, or otherwise, remedy the actual harm, directly and
proximately caused by the alleged conduct of the party that is the
basis for the settlement agreement, including payments requiring
monitoring and other payments for generalized harm.
This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial
uses of settlement monies, especially for vulnerable plaintiffs trying
to access the courts in search of restitution from legitimate harm.
As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of
Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that
engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by
this legislation.
Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated
against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for
conventional loans.
Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more
likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted
in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.
Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law,
the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a
portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to
provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.
HUD has approved thirty-seven housing counseling intermediaries that
financial institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party
providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department
settlement agreements.
Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers
deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them
of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and
remain homeowners.
In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling
services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly
underserved areas.
The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.
Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely
to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in
default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.
The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be
made available to the public.
[[Page H8116]]
This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from
hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my
constituents.
There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout
Texas.
The public has found itself in need of protection form environmental
harms caused by absconding deep pocket defendants.
To ensure these protections, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) may request Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in
settlement agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by
requiring parties to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or
activity that ``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees
to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.
In workplace discrimination cases, victims are guarded by the Civil
Rights Act passed by Congress in 1964 to remove discriminatory barriers
and to promote equality in employment opportunities.
Cases, nonetheless, involving workplace discrimination claims often
occur without identifiable victims and tend to affect the interests of
persons who are not likely to receive compensation for unlawful conduct
(e.g., unidentifiable victims such as former and future employees).
In these cases, a settling party that violated antidiscrimination
laws may seek to resolve its civil liability through workplace
monitoring or training programs that seek to remedy systemic unlawful
conduct.
Furthermore, the claim that the funding received by organizations to
provide home counseling services to harmed individuals amount to a
``slush fund,'' is an egregious and shameless attempt to smear and
impugn the integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil
rights organizations.
As the Justice Department has observed, remedies can correct both
noncompliance and recidivism through settlement terms that require a
party to undertake activity to prevent future misconduct.
Not only is this legislation an unnecessary intrusion into the
province of the federal courts, it is a part of a larger push to limit
Americans' ability to seek justice in a court of law.
An innocent-sounding name aside, this bill poses a grave threat to
our court system--the nation's stronghold for protecting our democracy.
In the current political climate, where the justice system is the
last line of defense for our nation's values, I urge my colleagues not
to cede that ground.
Congress should applaud and elevate the benefits of housing
counseling, and the good work of frontline organizations, in righting
the injustices of the past and present.
The working men and women of America, as well as their families
deserve fair and impartial access to real justice when major
corporations, inadvertently as it may be, inflict harm.
It is our duty as guardians of the judicial system to ensure real
restitution is available to all, including the most vulnerable.
For these reasons, I urge all Members to vote against H.R. 732.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from National Urban
League and a letter from Public Citizen.
National Urban League,
New York, NY, February 1, 2017.
Re Opposition to H.R. 732--The Stop Settlement Slush Funds
Act of 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: As
President and CEO of the National Urban League, the nation's
largest historic civil rights organization dedicated to
economic empowerment of African Americans and other
underserved urban communities, I write to urge you to oppose
H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. This
legislation seeks to block federal law enforcement from
including in negotiated settlements payments that provide
relief to victims of predatory lending. Specifically, the
bill targets federally certified housing counseling
intermediaries such as the National Urban League by
preventing these organizations from providing housing
counseling relief to communities that have been preyed upon
by financial institutions that have broken the law. H.R. 732
fails to recognize the critical role and positive benefits
that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing
and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses,
like those that led to the housing and financial crisis,
never happen again.
As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S.
Department of Justice pursued law suits against mortgage
lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending
practices. Research shows that African Americans and Latinos
were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans
even when they qualified for conventional loans. Moreover,
African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more
likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which
resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional
loans. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Justice
Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a
portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing
counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the
communities that were hit hardest.
The National Urban League is one of thirty-seven HUD-
approved housing counseling intermediaries that financial
institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party
providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice
Department settlement agreements. The National Urban League
is accredited by the Better Business Bureau and has a 4-star
rating from Charity Navigator, placing it in the top 10
percent of all U.S. charities for adhering to good
governance, fiscal responsibility and other best practices.
As a HUD-certified housing counseling provider, the
National Urban League successfully delivers financial
education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their
home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and
remain homeowners. In fact, since 2008, 40 of our affiliates
have provided housing counseling services--to date serving
more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.
The success of housing counseling programs provided by
National Urban League and others is undisputed. Borrowers who
have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be
seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who
are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their
homes. The benefits of these programs are tangible and must
continue to be made available to the public.
On a separate note, it has come to my attention the
National Urban League and National Council of La Raza have
been singled out during recent hearings on this legislation.
The claims made during congressional testimony that the
funding received by our organizations to provide home
counseling services amounts to a ``slush fund,'' is an
egregious and shameless attempt to smear and impugn the
integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil
rights organizations. Congress should applaud and elevate the
benefits of housing counseling, and the good work of
frontline organizations, like the National Urban League, in
righting the injustices of the past and present.
Therefore, I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 732 and
any efforts to include similar provisions in legislation
moving through Congress.
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and CEO.
____
Public Citizen,
Washington, DC, February 1, 2017.
Re Oppose the assault on civil justice.
House of Representatives,
Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Members of the U.S. House Judiciary
Committee: On behalf of Public Citizen, a non-profit
membership organization with more than 400,000 members and
supporters nationwide, we express extreme opposition to a
slate of three harmful bills scheduled to be marked-up in
Committee tomorrow: the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017
(H.R. 720), the Innocent Party Protection Party Act of 2017
(H.R. 725), and the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017
(H.R. 732). Seen separately, these bills attempt to make
technical changes to the way that courts operate; taken
together they are a concerted effort chip away at Americans'
ability to seek justice and, therefore, must be opposed.
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017 (H.R. 720)
The proposed Rule 11 changes in H.R. 720 will make federal
litigation more complicated, costly, and inaccessible to
consumers and employees. We urge you to reject this
legislation.
Currently, judges have discretion to impose sanctions on a
lawyer or a party in litigation to deter sanctionable conduct
in pleadings, motions, and other court papers. The so-called
Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, or LARA, would revise Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require sanctions,
rather than leaving the decision whether to impose sanctions
to the discretion of federal judges. This proposal would make
litigation longer and more expensive.
The problems with this bill are not theoretical, but
proven. In 1983, changes to Federal Rule 11 removed judicial
discretion for issuing sanctions. Those changes were
overturned a decade later, because the 1983 Rule caused a
marked increase in business-to-business litigation and
abusive Rule 11 motion practice by lawyers arguing more about
sanctions than about the merits of the cases. Because 1983
changes proved to discourage lawyers from cooperating with
each other, the changes prolonged litigation, rather than
advancing the goal of coming to a just conclusion. We must
not repeat this failed experiment.
Additionally, LARA would obstruct Americans' access to
justice, especially in cases such as those alleging civil
rights violations, as those types of cases can be based on
novel legal theories. In those cases, LARA would chill the
filing of meritorious suits, and justice for some will go
unserved.
[[Page H8117]]
Innocent Party Protection Party Act of 2017 (H.R. 725)
H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act (called the
Fraudulent Joinder Protection Act in previous Congresses) is
a supposed fix for an imagined problem. It addresses a
federal district court's consideration of a plaintiff's
motion to remand a case to state court, after a defendant has
removed the case from the state court in which it was filed
to federal district court on the theory that the plaintiff
had fraudulently joined a non-diverse defendant for the
purpose of defeating federal-court jurisdiction. The purpose
of the bill is to assist defendants in keeping cases in
federal court after removal. The bill purports to achieve
this purpose by specifying that the federal court consider
evidence, such as affidavits, and by specifying four findings
that would require a federal district court to deny a
plaintiff's motion to remand.
Congress should not get into the business of micro-managing
the motion practice of the federal courts without strong
evidence that current court procedures are not serving their
purpose: facilitating justice. In this instance, there is no
evidence to support the assumption that the district courts
are not denying motions to remand in appropriate cases.
Congress has no basis to revise the courts' procedures when
the current standards are not producing unjust results. The
Committee should hesitate before taking the step into
micromanagement of the federal courts' consideration of one
specific type of motion, where that motion has existed for
more than a century and there are only the flimsiest of
arguments in favor of changing it.
Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (H.R. 732)
This legislation is intended to cut off proceeds from
government settlements to ``third-party'' entities, which
would stop a critical source of funding for the nonprofit
sector--including public interest community organizations,
foundations or trusts and other similar groups.
The bill would bar government settlements from directing
payment to non-profit organizations, thereby hamstringing the
parties' ability to fully remedy the wrongdoing underlying
the lawsuit. Oftentimes, allowing these monies to be
available to third-parties is the best way to assure harmed
persons will be made whole.
Not only are these three bills unnecessary intrusions into
the province of the federal courts, they are part of a larger
push to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in a court
of law. Their innocent-sounding names aside, these bills pose
a grave threat to our court system--the nation's stronghold
for protecting our democracy. In the current political
climate, where the justice system is the last line of defense
for our nation's values, we urge you not to cede that ground.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gilbert,
Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.
Susan Harley,
Deputy Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman spoke quickly, and I know she had a lot of important
information there. Some of it simply was wrong.
One of them is that she touched on environmental cleanup. Very
clearly, nothing in this legislation would limit the cleanup related to
the wrongdoing or the damage. Not so. A third party could be hired to
do the cleanup.
Additionally, nothing stops a settlement from requiring a company to
have counseling or other mitigation. It simply stops the Department of
Justice from picking a charity of its choosing to go do it.
Now what I would really like the gentlewoman--who may not be on the
floor any longer--to understand is that the Department of Justice has
grant authority and does multiple grants every single month of the year
to some of the very same groups under its authority that these
settlements are going toward. Congress has allowed it a certain amount
of money to provide grants for general harm.
Additionally, every year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of
dollars to some of the very same groups and efforts the gentlewoman
knows that we are talking about.
So, although her speech was quick, the thing that she said that may
have misled some people here in the Chamber I think needs to be
corrected. Direct harm will be mitigated. It can be done by anyone. A
company can agree and be forced under supervision to mitigate and to
hire people to help in that effort.
Very clearly, many of the groups being talked about here today
already receive money through the grant process or through direct
appropriation by Congress. That is the right way to do it. It is the
reason this is a bipartisan bill and this is an effort by our Congress
to make sure that we hold the reins of authority where they should be
under the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wish what the gentleman from California was saying was right, but
as I listen to these tax cuts that are being talked about, many of
these fine programs that help individuals from being thrown out of
their house or in need of illegal aid are being cut back.
Each time I have seen on the floor the priorities of the party of the
gentleman from California, I see that these essential, consumer-
oriented not-for-profits are losing their funding.
So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 732.
This bill would tie the hands of prosecutors that go after financial
fraud, including the mortgage schemes that led to the 2008 crisis.
Apparently, my Republican colleagues have forgotten that not just
Democrats, but all Americans, faced the negative effects of the
mortgage fraud that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression.
Americans lost nearly $13 trillion in wealth, the unemployment rate
reached a high of 10 percent, and 11 million Americans lost their
homes. We all saw business opportunities evaporate in our communities
and good-paying jobs wither away.
To reverse these wrongs, the Obama administration reached record
settlements with firms that engaged in fraud. Through these settlement
agreements, the Department of Justice directed billions of dollars
toward: number one, affordable housing initiatives, including
downpayment programs that would help young people enter the housing
market; number two, financial counseling programs that would help
consumers avoid unsafe financial products; and number three, community
development initiatives that would spur economic growth in rural and
urban communities alike.
So I am baffled that my colleagues would want to prevent our
prosecutors from ensuring fraudulent firms to right their wrongs.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. MEEKS. This should not be a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman; not at
all. Americans from the East, from the West, from the North, from the
South, from middle America; Americans who are Democrats, Republicans,
and Independents have all suffered as a result of what the Justice
Department has done by fighting to make sure that we correct this wrong
by fighting and winning decisions on making sure that those who have no
voice, have a voice.
Many of the individuals who were funded here were giving a voice to
the voiceless. Without that voice, those who have will continue to do
and perpetuate the fraud that is committed upon many.
So this should not be a red issue; this should not be a blue issue.
Just as former President Barack Obama said, this should be a red,
white, and blue issue. It is a red, white, and blue issue where justice
should be given a fair chance to prevail for all of America's people.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am putting this sign up not for the people in the
Chamber, because people in the Chamber on the other side have continued
to read the same talking points from their leadership that says there
is no evidence.
This is in the record. This is a bigger part of it. So for the people
in their offices who will come down to vote, if there is not a motion
to recommit, they are not going to get an opportunity to see this.
So I hope that they will look just now and realize this is one of
those things you don't normally get. As Chairman Goodlatte said, this
is a smoking gun. This is a clear statement that an ideological bent
against a nonprofit was very specifically there, while other emails in
the same chain of emails shows that they were picking who they wanted.
[[Page H8118]]
{time} 1600
That is the politics that was going on. It is the politics we are
trying to prevent. As I said in my previous statement, the Department
of Justice is given a number of dollars for grant programs, and we may
not always agree with how those grant programs are run, but we give
them that.
Additionally, the Congress appropriates a tremendous amount of money,
much of it going to the same groups. A little over 1\1/2\ years ago, 2
years ago, this body came together on the reauthorization on Violence
Against Women, which has and will continue to do very good work in
exactly the area that people are talking about.
This is the reason we have legislation before us today. We have had
political activity that has been going on, according to the Democrats,
by Republican Attorneys General; according to this document, by the
last Attorneys General. The fact is, we need the legislation. We have
to have it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I note that a broad coalition
of public interest organizations, including Public Citizen, Americans
for Financial Reform, the National Urban League, among others, strongly
oppose H.R. 732. They warn: ``This measure would undermine law
enforcement goals by reducing the availability of suitable remedies to
address these kind of injuries to the public caused by illegal
conduct.''
This bill is, in effect, a gift to lawbreakers that comes at the
expense of families and communities impacted by injuries that cannot be
addressed by direct restitution, and so I have to ask: Why are we
giving a gift to lawbreakers in the guise of H.R. 732?
If you value, as I do, upholding the rule of law, then you will join
me and many others in opposing this seriously flawed measure.
I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I don't believe there is any question at
all but that the minority has missed the point. In no way, shape, or
form are we changing. We intend to make sure the Department of Justice
prosecutes wrongdoing, both criminal and civil.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) rightfully said we
shouldn't have money paid in lieu of criminal prosecution; it should be
both. I agree with him.
What we are dealing with here is a recognition that, under Republican
and Democratic administrations, we have had mandatory donations that,
in fact, went to charities, if you will, or organizations of the choice
of those political entities. The fact is what we are doing is reining
in--reining in--wrongdoing that is actual and has been observed,
nothing more.
One of the challenges we face every day and one of the reasons I am
imploring both sides to come together on this vote, one of the
challenges we face is how much of our obligation we have ceded to the
executive branch, often then only to be horrified when, behind closed
doors, unelected, unaccountable people make decisions that would never
be made on the House floor or the Senate floor, and this is one of
them.
We are scrutinized when we pick nonprofits to provide funding to on
the left, on the right, or, if there is such a thing left in America,
in the middle. We are scrutinized. But when we scrutinize the
Department of Justice's action, according to my colleagues, under
Republicans, there has been clear wrongdoing. According to the
documents that we put in the Record today and showed on the floor, in
the last administration, there was clear partisan politics.
We are simply saying, if they want to make that kind of a settlement,
bring it to Congress; otherwise, it is very clear that they must--and I
repeat, must--stop the action of taking money that would otherwise go
to the victims and moving it to nondescript third parties of their
choosing, no matter how benevolent they might be, including the Coast
Guard Foundation. It can't continue to happen. We have to have the
money that is in settlements flow to the victims or flow to the
Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fitzpatrick). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed
in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 732
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON DONATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A
PARTY.
(a) Limitation on Required Donations.--An official or agent
of the Government may not enter into or enforce any
settlement agreement on behalf of the United States,
directing or providing for a payment or loan to any person or
entity other than the United States, other than a payment or
loan that provides restitution for or otherwise directly
remedies actual harm (including to the environment) directly
and proximately caused by the party making the payment or
loan, or constitutes payment for services rendered in
connection with the case or a payment pursuant to section
3663 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Penalty.--Any official or agent of the Government who
violates subsection (a), shall be subject to the same
penalties that would apply in the case of a violation of
section 3302 of title 31, United States Code.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) apply only in
the case of a settlement agreement concluded on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Definition.--The term ``settlement agreement'' means a
settlement agreement resolving a civil action or potential
civil action, a plea agreement, a deferred prosecution
agreement, or a non-prosecution agreement.
(e) Reports on Settlement Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Beginning at the end of the first fiscal
year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and annually thereafter, the head of each Federal agency
shall submit electronically to the Congressional Budget
Office a report on each settlement agreement entered into by
that agency during that fiscal year that directs or provides
for a payment or loan to a person or entity other than the
United States that provides restitution for or otherwise
directly remedies actual harm (including to the environment)
directly and proximately caused by the party making the
payment or loan, or constitutes payment for services rendered
in connection with the case, including the parties to each
settlement agreement, the source of the settlement funds, and
where and how such funds were and will be distributed.
(2) Prohibition on additional funding.--No additional funds
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subsection.
(3) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective on
the date that is 7 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(f) Annual Audit Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Beginning at the end of the first fiscal
year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and annually thereafter, the Inspector General of each
Federal agency shall submit a report to the Committees on the
Judiciary, on the Budget and on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, on any settlement
agreement entered into in violation of this section by that
agency.
(2) Prohibition on additional funding.--No additional funds
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subsection.
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 17, insert ``and, to the extent any victim
thereof was an identifiable person, suffered by the payee or
lendee,'' before ``or constitutes''.
[[Page H8119]]
Page 3, insert after line 19 the following (and redesignate
succeeding subsections accordingly):
(b) Limitation on Cy-pres.--Amounts remaining after all
claims have been satisfied shall be repaid proportionally to
each party who contributed to the original payment.
Page 3, line 21, insert after ``subsection (a)'' the
following: ``or (b)''.
Page 4, line 1, strike ``and (b)'' and insert ``, (b), and
(c)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 prohibits settlements
that provide for payments to nonvictim third parties. But what happens
to leftover money if the settlement does not specifically provide for
its disposition?
It turns out that this situation is ripe for abuse.
In 2013, a shocking New York Times expose revealed that the Obama
administration bilked over a billion dollars from the taxpayer-funded
Judgment Fund and handed it to special interests. The case, called
Keepseagle, concerned claims against the Department of Agriculture.
The settlement, spearheaded by then Assistant Attorney General
Anthony West, vastly overstated the number of claims against the
government. One result was a $60 million windfall for the plaintiff's
lawyer, who was on President Obama's transition team the year before.
The other result was $380 million in funds left over. This was
taxpayer money. But instead of demanding it back, the Department of
Justice agreed to direct it to nonvictim third parties to be selected
by the same plaintiff's lawyer and member of President Obama's
transition team. This, quite rightly, troubled the presiding judge.
My amendment would close this loophole by requiring that money left
over after all victims have been compensated must be returned to
wherever it came from.
This amendment also clarifies that permitted remedial payments must
go to victims who suffered the injuries on which plaintiffs' claims are
based. This prevents situations in which a payment is classified as
remedial but is directed to an intermediary.
The abuses of power that I outlined today in the settlement context
are truly disturbing. This is our opportunity to stop the abuse. We
should be as comprehensive as possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, Members of the House, this amendment makes a
bad bill even worse. To begin with, it would prohibit cy-pres
distributions pursuant to which parties attempt to find the next best
use of funds that remain after a class action settlement has been
finally administered. Cy-pres is especially important in actions where
the recovery is so small for an individual class member that he or she
may not bother to make a claim or where a distribution is not
practical.
For example, courts under cy-pres may permit unclaimed settlement
funds to provide indirect compensation to the class, such as future
price reductions or remediation efforts. As a result of this amendment,
however, the unclaimed settlement funds would be returned to the very
entities that caused the injury in the first place. Simply put, this
amendment would benefit the wrongdoers to the detriment of the victims
they harmed.
In addition, this amendment would restrict the amount of compensation
a victim could receive under a settlement agreement to the extent the
victim was actually harmed by the wrongdoer. The amendment completely
ignores the pragmatic realities of systemic harms, such as widespread
long-term or latent environmental damage like lead-contaminated public
water drinking systems--think of Flint, Michigan--where the extent of a
victim's exposure to such harms may be difficult and, perhaps, even
impossible to quantify.
In a letter opposed to this amendment, a group of public interest
organizations, including Earthjustice, Public Citizen, Alliance for
Justice, the Center for Justice & Democracy, and the American
Association for Justice, said it is terrible public policy because
wrongdoers would benefit from a windfall for cheating and harming
consumers, undoing the accountability or deterrence function of the
entire settlement. This is absolutely the wrong result, and so I urge
that this amendment be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
important amendment which strengthens the legislation, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the
following: ``(except as provided in subsection (g))''.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
(g) Exception.--The provisions of this Act do not apply in
the case of a settlement agreement in relation to
discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or
any other protected category.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I have this amendment is because
I don't think the bill is a good bill, and it shouldn't affect
settlement agreements on the basis of race, religion, national origin,
or any other protected category.
I was kind of shocked that it was put in order; I will be even more
shocked if it passes. But the reality is it doesn't make any difference
because this bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate.
{time} 1615
Most of what we do in the Judiciary Committee is highly partisan
matters that won't go anywhere in the Senate. We are one of the four
committees of jurisdiction that can deal with matters dealing with the
White House, with Russian interference in our election, and with issues
concerning obstruction of justice and the firing of James Comey with
Emoluments Clause violations, abuse of power, and attacks on the
judiciary.
The Senate and House Intelligence Committees have investigations. So
does the Senate Judiciary Committee. Only our committee has done
absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Today, Senator Jeff Flake, a gentleman who I served with in the House
and a man of moral rectitude, said he cannot continue to serve in the
Senate because to be quiet on issues concerning the White House in
relation to decency, truth, and other matters would involve complicity.
He couldn't remain complicit.
By our committee not taking any actions concerning activities in the
White House, we are complicit. We should be the most responsible
committee in the Congress because we are the people's House, and we
have the judiciary, the FBI, and elections all within our purview, yet
we have remained silent.
Part of the reason that has been said is because other groups are
investigating. Well, we are the group that should be doing the
investigating because we are the people's House. We don't not take up
bills like this because the Senate is not going to pass them. We take
them up all the time, throw them over there, and they don't come back.
So I am distraught by the fact that my friend Jeff Flake, who is one
of the finest people I have served with, a man of rectitude, is not
going to run for reelection. He wasn't a knee-jerk Republican, just
like Bob Corker is not a knee-jerk Republican. And both
[[Page H8120]]
have said many truths today about what is going on in the executive
branch.
We are an equal branch of government that has responsibility to be a
check and balance, and the House Judiciary Committee has that
responsibility. I once again call on the chairman of the committee to
hold hearings on elections, on Russian interference in our elections,
on threats to our democracy, on violations of the Emoluments Clause,
obstruction of justice, and the firing of the FBI Director.
The FBI is under our charge. We should have hearings. We should have
hearings on emoluments. We should have hearings on all of these issues
and not be complicit. Being complicit is the same as being guilty.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that we pass the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary
because it would exempt certain discrimination settlements from the
bill's ban on third-party payments. But nothing in the underlying bill
prevents a victim of discrimination from obtaining relief, and that is
the important point.
The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 explicitly permits
remedial payments to third-party victims who are directly and
proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing. Nor does the bill
preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases.
For example, nothing in the bill bars the Department of Justice from
requiring a defendant to implement workplace training and monitoring
programs. The ban on third-party payments merely ensures that the
defendant remains responsible for performing these tasks itself and is
not forced to outsource set sums for the work to third parties who
might be friendly with a given administration.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the
following: ``(except as provided in subsection (g))''.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
(g) Exception.--The provisions of this Act do not apply in
the case of a settlement agreement that directs funds to
remediate the indirect harms caused by unlawful conduct,
including the intentional bypassing, defeating, or rendering
inoperative a required element of a vehicle's emissions
control system in violation of section 203 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7522).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to
this so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. It is not a slush fund
at all. It is a fund that goes to compensate people who are harmed due
to the wrongdoing of mostly large multinational corporations. So this
is misnamed. It talks about a slush fund. There is no slush fund
involved here.
This is an unwise and odious bill. What my amendment would do would
be to exempt cases concerning manipulations of emissions standards from
the harshness of this bill. In other words, the Federal Government,
through the EPA, could institute a lawsuit against a firm or company,
large multinational foreign company like Volkswagen, as it did a couple
of years ago, and obtain benefits that would accrue to not just the
direct recipients of the harm from Volkswagen, but also to society at
large that was harmed by Volkswagen's fraudulent activity.
What happened was that Volkswagen sold about 590,000 diesel-powered
vehicles here in the United States. These vehicles were supposed to
conform with U.S. law insofar as emissions standards are concerned.
What Volkswagen did was put a mechanism in the cars that would defeat
the ability of the regulators who wanted to check to find out whether
or not the vehicles complied with emissions standards. So Volkswagen
cheated. They sold 590,000--almost 600,000--vehicles on America's roads
that were unknowingly polluting the very air that all of us breathe. So
we all suffered a harm as a result of Volkswagen's fraud. But there
were 590,000 vehicle owners who had to be protected as well.
So the EPA sued Volkswagen. Volkswagen knew they were wrong. They
settled the case. It was about $15 billion. That shows you how much
money they have and how much money they are trying to protect here with
this bill. The $15 billion was to go to compensate the aggrieved
vehicle owners as well as society at large for the harm that was done
due to the fraudulent conduct.
Now, what this legislation would do would be to cut the ability of
the U.S. Government to sue a corporate wrongdoer and receive benefits
that it would then put into the hands of the individuals who were
harmed, as well as to rectify the harm done to society.
This amendment would exempt this kind of case, the Volkswagen case,
from the harsh restrictions of this legislation. So I would ask, in the
interest of our environmental consciousness, that this body would vote
in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary
because it would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy
indirect harm resulting from violations of the Clean Air Act and other
violations. But that is precisely the problem.
How best to address indirect harm is a policy question that is
properly decided by the elected representatives of Congress only and
not by agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
An example that highlights this is the $2.7 billion mitigation fund
that the Department of Justice required in its settlement of claims
against Volkswagen. That fund mitigated direct harm, which is permitted
under this bill.
The problem was that, through a second fund, the Obama Justice
Department required Volkswagen to spend an additional $2 billion on an
administration electric vehicle initiative after Congress twice refused
to appropriate funds for it. It is that subversion of Congress' power
of the purse that this bill is designed to target. Nothing in this bill
lets corporate polluters off the hook, and it is nonsense to say
otherwise.
If direct remediation of the harm is impossible or impractical, the
full penalty is still paid, but it goes to the Treasury. After that,
the decision on how best to use it is left to the people's elected
representatives in Congress rather than the executive branch.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is nonsense to say that this
bill protects corporate polluters and corporate wrongdoers--that is
what we just heard--and that the amendment is unnecessary because it
addresses indirect harm, and that indirect harm should be addressed by
not bureaucrats in the EPA, but by Congress.
Now, we all know how gridlocked Congress has been over the years.
There has been nothing coming out of this Congress. I predict they
won't even be able to do--they couldn't do repeal and replace. They
were at it for 9 months, stalled everything else out,
[[Page H8121]]
couldn't do repeal and replace. So now they are on comprehensive, what
they call, tax reform, which is only tax breaks for the top 1 percent
when you peel everything back.
They are not going to be able to do that because my friends in the
Freedom Caucus will prevent them from adding $1.5 trillion to the
national debt. I support them in that endeavor. They can count on my
vote for that.
But this is nonsense, ladies and gentlemen. We have to stop
protecting these corporate wrongdoers and put the hands back into the
courts and to the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman a
question.
You made reference to the decision of--I forget the word you used to
describe bureaucrats.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I have the script right here. Let me tell
you how I define them.
I don't know. Bureaucrats. You tell me.
Mr. CICILLINE. I think you said some pejorative word describing
bureaucrats.
But I just want to ask the gentleman--the settlements that are
described or the subject of this legislation, of course, are
settlements that would require court approval and enforcement. So I
think in fairness, when you say it is so that a bureaucrat doesn't get
to decide this, this is pursuant to litigation which the parties come
to an agreement that then the court must approve.
So this is really about respecting the ability of the court to assess
the propriety of a judgment. And I think there was a very famous
decision where one of the courts said the purpose of the Clean Water
Act was not to endow the Treasury, but to prevent harm. So the idea is
not just to generate money for the government, but to actually
remediate and respond to the harm that was caused by the corporate
wrongdoer.
I think that is why Mr. Johnson's amendment is important, brilliant,
and deserves our support.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time about the
brilliant amendment, it is, again, not necessary.
And in response to the question, the court does not always approve
every one of these; and that is the point.
The gist of this amendment and the purpose of the bill is to restore
and strengthen our Article I power under the Constitution. You may not
like the way Congress operates, you may not like all of the decisions
that are made here, but in their infinite wisdom, this is how the
Founders designed our system. It has worked very well, and it will
continue to do so. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the
following: ``(other than an excepted settlement agreement)''.
Page 4, strike line 4, and insert the following:
(d) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) The term ``excepted settlement agreement'' means a
settlement agreement that pertains to providing restitution
for a State.
(2) The term ``settlement agreement''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think, when we come to the floor, we
are obligated to as much educate our colleagues who may be back in
their offices or in meetings as it is to educate the general public.
{time} 1630
The name of this bill is distorted and incorrect. I think it is
important to note what happens when the Department of Justice engages
in lawsuits on behalf of the American people, and they are the American
people's lawyer, or they are sued.
In many instances, there is something called a consent decree and a
settlement that generates funds that can be utilized for the betterment
of the American people.
So why don't you view this side of the aisle with the betterment of
the American people because we are questioning legislation that would
eliminate the opportunity for those who are doing good work to be
funded by career professionals in the Justice Department.
So the basis of this bill is to throw this money over into the
Congress, of which I have great respect in terms of its Article I
powers, requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary
fund established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to
victims, such as in the case of predatory lending, employment
discrimination, pollution, environmental hazards, and would greatly
strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time.
They want us to now, line by line, disseminate these funds that can
be done by career professionals dealing with improving on the issue
upon which the government was sued. It opens the doors to industry
influence and obstruction.
I don't believe we have earmarks anymore. I happen to be a supporter
of getting moneys to the community. We don't have an appropriations
bill now, we don't have a budget now. So it is almost November, and the
Congress has not yet appropriated funds to run the government nor have
they passed a budget. That would be the maze of which you would throw a
very proficient process of allowing these funds to be distributed.
The Jackson Lee amendment would exempt from this confused bill
settlement agreements that would provide restitution to States that are
not parties to the litigation. That means, for example, after Hurricane
Harvey, there was an explosion at the Arkema chemical plant. Nine
trailers exploded and several first responders went to the hospital. I
would want to seek funds to be able to help them.
We also understand that there are many organizations representing the
people. Public Citizen, a nonprofit membership organization, they are
against it. The Urban League is against it. The counties have issued a
resolution, local counties. They are against it.
I think there is no clearer evidence to vote this particular bill
down, but to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would exempt
settlements providing restitution to a State, the idea presumably being
that the State could then distribute money as it sees fit for
generalized harm to its citizens, but nothing in this bill prevents
Congress from making block grants to States to address generalized
harm. Indeed, Congress regularly appropriates money to States to deal
with challenges, including environmental cleanups. Examples of this
include the EPA Superfund and the Brownfields grants.
This bill merely insists that decisions on when such grants are
appropriate and in what amounts, that those decisions be made by
accountable representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats and
prosecutors.
Compensating direct victims is a job for the Justice Department.
Broader projects are a policy question that should be decided by
Congress.
[[Page H8122]]
Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, this is my very point. My very point
is a transparent and clear system of distribution of funds, and the
career professionals determining what entities need those funds is a
clearer system than what would occur if moneys were dumped onto
Congress outside of the normal budgetary and appropriations process, of
which we are having a very difficult time as we speak.
The process that we have now, my amendment says that these settlement
agreements that provide restitution to States that are not parties to
the litigation, they shouldn't be covered by the elimination of the
right for the career professionals to distribute these funds.
It also acknowledges the respect for the Congress and the work that
it has to do, but it also acknowledges counties like Jefferson County,
Texas, the resolution to the National Association of Counties. They are
against this bill because it would disallow funds derived from court
settlements for injuries to the environment from being distributed to
States, counties, and parishes, borrowers in proximity to the pollution
event. These are real people representing real people right on the
ground asking for us to not pass this legislation.
I would say to my good friend, why don't we use our Article I powers
to begin investigations on the separation of powers relevant to the
administration and its actions. Why don't we begin looking at whether
there are high crimes and misdemeanors.
I mean, there are many things that our Article I powers can do, but,
in this instance, I think that this has not proven to be a failure, and
the only failure in it is the obsession that my friends have with the
past administration.
I want to have something that has worked for the county governments,
people who live in counties and cities and States. If they were harmed
during Hurricane Harvey, for example, by an explosion and 23 first
responders went to the hospital and many houses were evacuated, I
believe it would be appropriate to leave the system in which those
dollars can go directly to those counties and cities and States and to
improve the quality of life.
Mr. Chair, I ask my friends to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, the proposed legislation, as currently drafted, could be
construed to preclude all third-party payments in settlement
agreements, other than restitution to identifiable victims.
Requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary fund
established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to victims,
such as in cases of predatory lending, employment discrimination and
pollution through environmental hazardous, would greatly strain
Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time, while
opening the doors to industry influence and obstruction in routine
enforcement matters.
Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review
and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.
The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating
consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.
Accordingly, the Jackson Lee Amendment would excecpt cases where
funds are directed to states to remediate the generalized harm of
unlawful conduct beyond harms to identifiable victims.
Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment would exempt from H.R. 732
settlement agreements that provide restitution to states that are not
parties to litigation.
As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of
Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that
engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by
this legislation.
Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated
against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for
conventional loans.
Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more
likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted
in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.
Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law,
the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a
portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to
provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.
HUD has approved 37 housing counseling intermediaries that financial
institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party providers of
consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department settlement
agreements.
Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers
deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them
of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and
remain homeowners.
In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling
services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly
underserved areas.
The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.
Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely
to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in
default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.
The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be
made available to the public.
This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from
hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my
constituents.
There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout
Texas.
Under current law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may
include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement
agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by requiring parties
to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or activity that
``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees to undertake as
part of the settlement of an enforcement action.
In 2012, the EPA and Justice Department resolved the civil liability
of MOEX Offshore through a settlement agreement resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that included funds to several Gulf
states, including Texas, where Texas was not a party to the complaint,
but received $3.25 million for SEPs and other responsive actions.
H.R. 732, would prohibit these agreements and many of the important
benefits now provided by EPA.
The bill's definition excludes, ``any payment by a party to provide
restitution for or otherwise remedy the actual harm (including to the
environment), directly and proximately caused by the alleged conduct of
the party that is the basis for the settlement agreement.''
This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial
uses of settlement monies.
Thus, for example, the bill would appear to ban the following
entirely legitimate, appropriate uses of settlement funds that are
currently permitted by EPA:
(1) Pollution prevention projects that improve plant procedures and
technologies, and/or operation and maintenance practices, that will
prevent additional pollution at its source;
(2) Environmental restoration projects including activities that
protect local ecosystems from actual or potential harm resulting from
the violation;
(3) Facility assessments and audits, including investigations of
local environmental quality, environmental compliance audits, and
investigations into opportunities to reduce the use, production, and
generation of toxic materials;
(4) Programs that promote environmental compliance by promoting
training or technical support to other members of the regulated
community; and
(5) Projects that provide technical assistance or equipment to a
responsible state or local emergency response entity for purposes of
emergency planning or preparedness.
Each of these programs provide important protections of human health
and the environment in communities that have been harmed by
environmental violations.
However, because they are unlikely to be construed as redressing
``actual (environmental) harm, directly and proximately caused'' by the
alleged violator, the bill before this committee would prohibit every
one of them.
On August 31, 2017, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, dangerous
chemicals at the Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, exploded
and burned.
Nine trailers at the plant contained organic peroxides that first
exploded and burned, sending 23 first responders to the hospital. In
addition, despite a 1\1/2\ mile radius evacuation from the chemical
releases, dozens of residents were effected for days by the noxious
fumes, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and burning eyes.
This recent incident is a prime example of how restitution to a
community under an enforcement settlement should work. EPA should (not
sure if they are) engage in enforcement activities against Arkema,
including civil fines and restitution to the community. There were
[[Page H8123]]
clear health impacts on many in the community and a settlement could,
as an example, fund health care assistance short term, or even long
term monitoring of lung health. However, if H.R. 732 were law, only
first responders would likely have the ability to seek restitution.
This is not okay. It utterly fails to help make a community whole after
such a terrible event.
Background facts:
23 first responders were sent to the hospital due to exposure to
chemical fumes.
Residents within a 1\1/2\ mile radius were asked to evacuate, though
in this low-income neighborhood in the aftermath of the storm, many
were unable to.
Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), and original cosponsor of H.R. 732 and
representative of the district that plant and affected community are
located in, at the time told ABC News as events were unfolding that the
situation was ``very dangerous . . . (and) . . . the worst-case
scenario is that this chemical plant could explode.''
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the
Jackson Lee Amendment.
Proposed Resolution on the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act
A resolution from Jefferson County, Texas to the National
Association of Counties seeking to maintain the status quo
for states, counties, parishes and boroughs being able to
receive damages payments for environmental crimes in
proximity to them (e.g., Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).
Issue: H.R. 732, a bill that may restrict or disallow
Department of Justice Supplemental Environmental Plans from
benefiting states, counties, parishes and boroughs in
proximity to pollution events that result in court
settlements for environmental damages.
Proposed Policy: The National Association of Counties
(NACo) opposes any provisions within the final version of
H.R. 732 that would disallow funds derived from court
settlements for injuries to the environment from being
distributed to states, counties, parishes and boroughs in
proximity to the pollution event.
Background: On Jan 30, 2017, Representative Goodlatte,
along with 34 other cosponsors, introduced the Stop
Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (H.R. 732) which could ban
or restrict the current practice involving Supplemental
Environmental Projects' distribution of court settlement
proceeds to states, counties, parishes and boroughs.
H.R. 732 has been referred to the U.S. House of
Representatives Judiciary Committee and assigned to the
Regulatory Reform, Commercial & Antitrust Law Subcommittee.
Members of the Committee are unclear about H.R. 732's
provisions relating to payments to remediate direct harm,
including environmental harm, done by defendant's wrongful
activity.
This is particularly important in the environmental
context, in which the injury to the environment may be
diffuse and there may be no identifiable victims.
Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Congress
may both have roles in determining eligibility for states,
counties, parishes and boroughs in proximity to a pollution
event for receiving funds from a settlement agreement.
H.R. 732 is unclear on this issue, prompting dissenting
opinions about whether the bill prevents states, counties,
parishes and boroughs in proximity to pollution events (e.g.,
the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills) from
receiving funds derived from court settlements.
NACo should oppose any provision in H.R. 732 that modifies
or restricts current practice in distributing proceeds from
court settlement agreements for environmental damage events.
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Congressional concurrence with
this NACo resolution upholds the status quo practice in court
settlement agreements for environmental events.
Sponsor: Jeff R. Branick, Judge, Jefferson County, Texas
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I would just respond to my
learned colleague by quoting a renowned liberal legal scholar, the late
Abner Mikva, who explained in a law review article back in 1986, that
even if it were less efficient to go through Congress, that would be no
reason to cede the point of principle. This is what he wrote:
``To ensure that Congress would act as the first branch of
government, the constitutional Framers gave the legislature virtually
exclusive power to control the Nation's purse strings. . . . They knew
that the power of the purse was the most far-reaching and effectual of
all governmental powers. . . . Doubtless they understood that a
collection of diverse individuals representing diverse interests . . .
would less efficiently and less coherently devise fiscal policy than
would a single `treasurer' or `fiscal czar.' Yet they chose, for good
reason, to suffer this cost and bear its risks.''
That is from a liberal legal scholar, and, of course, conservatives
agree.
The system that the Founders set up, the reason and purpose for
Article I, is to allow these major decisions to be made by the elected
Representatives of Congress, and, for that reason, we oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Donovan). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the
following: ``(except as provided in subsection (g))''.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
(g) Exception.--The provisions of this Act do not apply in
the case of a settlement agreement that resolves the criminal
or civil liability of a financial institution for the
predatory or fraudulent packaging, securitization, marketing,
sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which
would exempt from H.R. 732 any settlement agreement that directs funds
to reduce the effects of the mortgage foreclosure crisis through
foreclosure prevention assistance programs.
There is little debate that predatory and fraudulent activity in the
residential mortgage securities market was the primary cause of the
mortgage foreclosure crisis.
As U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn observed in 2014, one need
not ``be an expert in economics to take notice that it was the trading
of toxic RMBS''--residential mortgage-backed securities--``between
financial institutions that nearly brought down the banking system in
2008.''
The financial crisis blighted entire cities and communities,
resulting in more than 13 million Americans losing their homes between
2006 and 2014, an average of 850,000 per year.
Beyond the life-changing hardship and stress placed on families by
unlawful conduct in the housing market, the exponential rise in
foreclosures imposed significant external costs on families and
communities across the Nation.
Fraudulent activity in the housing market depressed home and
commercial real estate values, undermined economic development and
municipal revenue, deprived communities of public services, and
resulted in increases of violent crime in communities of significant
foreclosure activity.
Leading studies have also documented the contagious effects of
foreclosures, and not just the neighborhood immediately affected by the
foreclosures, but nearby vicinities as well, underscoring the diffuse
and systemic impacts of unlawful mortgage securities practices.
In response to the financial crisis, President Obama announced in
2012, the creation of an investigatory unit within the Justice
Department to: `` . . . hold accountable those who broke the law, speed
assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of
recklessness that hurt so many Americans.''
This unit secured more than $40 billion in civil penalties,
compensation, and consumer relief through settlement with five
financial institutions for alleged misconduct involving the packaging,
marketing, and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.
Geoffrey Graber, who directed this effort within the Justice
Department,
[[Page H8124]]
testified in 2015 that these settlements meaningfully addressed the
vicious cycle of harm caused by fraud in the housing market by
achieving accountability from financial institutions that engaged in
wrongdoing related to residential mortgage-backed securities, and to
the extent possible, bringing some measure of relief to homeowners who
suffered as a result of the financial crisis.
In addition to civil penalties, these settlements included statements
of fact describing the pervasive fraud that permeated the mortgage
market. In just one example, a bank employee stated that he would not
be surprised if half of these loans went down, and that the banks
should start praying.
The settlements also included consumer relief provisions designed to
enable many Americans to stay in their homes by directing funds to
distressed homeowners, community reinvestment and stabilization, and
income-based lending for borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure.
The Department's settlement with Citigroup and Bank of America
additionally directed $50 million in funds to charitable housing
council programs and legal aid organizations to provide counsel to
homeowners entitled to relief under the settlement because they were
directly affected by the fraudulent and predatory conduct of the
settling banks.
As the Center for American Progress has noted, these funds account
for less than 1 percent of the overall amount of each settlement, and
will support services provided by housing counselors and other trusted
intermediaries that enable consumers to access the consumer relief to
which they are entitled under the settlements.
We should be doing everything in our power to keep American families
in their homes and off the streets, not letting big banks off the hook
for their predatory and fraudulent practices, and so I urge my
colleagues to adopt this amendment that will address this very
important issue.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt
settlements resolving allegations of predatory or fraudulent conduct
involving residential mortgage-backed securities, as we have heard.
Ironically, it creates an exception in the very situation in which the
abuses we highlighted earlier arose.
The key point here is that nothing in the underlying bill prevents
direct victims of mortgage fraud from obtaining relief.
The concern of this amendment is that there may be cases of
generalized harm to communities that cannot be addressed by
restitution, but this misses the fundamental point.
The Department of Justice has authority to obtain redress for
victims. Federal law defines victims to be those ``directly and
proximately harmed'' by the defendant's acts.
Once those victims have been compensated, deciding whether additional
moneys, other than for penalties, should be allocated to address
related problems becomes a policy question properly decided by elected
representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
Indeed, Congress already funds homeowner assistance programs through
the annual appropriations process, balancing it against competing
priorities.
As we have repeated throughout this debate, the spending power is one
of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch.
This is true, by the way, no matter which party is in the White House.
This amendment would weaken that essential congressional power, and,
for that reason, we urge Members to oppose it on institutional grounds.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, if I might just say briefly, the notion
that Congress can just do these appropriations itself sort of misses
the point. It is the responsibility of Article III courts to hear
disputes, supervise litigation, and enforce settlements.
It is an odd moment for Congress to take on the work of another
branch of government when we can't even do our own work here.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend, for
yielding.
Mr. Chair, this is a subject that I think we have a great deal of
experience on in this country. It is only a decade since the housing
crisis wreaked havoc, not just on individual families, but on whole
communities.
{time} 1645
The notion that one of the available tools that we can deploy to deal
with the consequence of this sort of predatory activity by going right
at the source of that predation and require them to supply the
resources to offset the impact of that activity is something that we
really ought to think carefully about.
Mr. Chair, mortgage foreclosures wreck families, but also wreck
communities. We ought to use every tool we can to prevent them by
ensuring that individuals know and have access to the resources they
need in order to prevent this from happening again. The impact is
devastating, and we ought to do everything we can to prevent it from
happening again.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by
saying that those compelling policy arguments should be made
appropriately in this Chamber, and it is the elected representatives of
the people in this Chamber who can make those fateful decisions. There
may be good arguments. There may be things that we need to do, but the
point is that we are the persons who have the constitutional authority
to make those decisions, not bureaucrats, not prosecutors.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 115-363.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the
following: ``(except as provided in subsection (g))''.
Add at the end of the bill the following:
(g) Exception.--The provisions of this Act do not apply in
the case of a settlement agreement that directs funds to
remediate the indirect harms caused by unlawful conduct
resulting in an increase in the amount of lead in public
drinking water.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 732
settlement agreements that direct funds to remediate the indirect but
catastrophic effects of unlawful conduct resulting in lead
contamination in public drinking water.
Lead contamination in public drinking water is potentially a national
public health crisis as older cities continue to rely on aging lead
pipes for the delivery of public drinking water.
A report from the American Water Works Association estimates that
this problem could potentially affect millions of water service lines.
For example, Highland Park, located in my district, has been dealing
with issues resulting from aging lead pipes. Just last month, officials
closed public water fountains and fixtures due to unsafe samples of
lead in public drinking water.
The well-publicized Flint water crisis is another painful example of
the disastrous consequences of lead contamination in public drinking
water.
[[Page H8125]]
The director of the pediatric residents at Hurley Children's Hospital
in Flint wrote: ``To understand the contamination of this city, think
about drinking water through a straw coated in lead. As you sip, lead
particles flake off into the water and are ingested. Flint's children
have been drinking water through lead-coated straws.''
The Flint water crisis has generated numerous lawsuits by
individuals, local and State agencies, and public interest
organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the
American Civil Liberties Union.
While these cases tend to involve numerous victims directly affected
by unlawful conduct, they can also affect the interests of persons who
are not parties to the case or are likely to receive compensation for
unlawful conduct.
Given the systemic nature of lead contamination in drinking water,
settlement agreements resolving civil and criminal liability related to
the Flint water crisis may require setting aside funds for
unidentifiable victims, directing payments to address generalized harm,
or establishing an environmental compliance program to avoid lead
contamination in the future.
Unfortunately, these entirely legitimate forms of indirect
remediation of environmental harms would be prohibited by H.R. 732.
Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment undercuts
Congress' power. It is another attempt to do so, and it should be
opposed for that reason.
It would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm
resulting from lead in drinking water. It is a terrible problem. The
amendment is forced to focus on indirect harm because nothing in the
bill prevents remediation of direct harm.
But settlement provisions addressing indirect harm are precisely why
this bill is needed. The bill's guiding principle is that once direct
victims have been compensated, deciding the best use of additional
funds to address related problems--whether that is addressing indirect
harms or otherwise--is, again, a policy question properly decided by
elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or
prosecutors.
We have proven the point. Last year, Congress actually acted on this.
Congress appropriated $120 million to address drinking water problems
in Flint, Michigan. If there is further need, Congress can make
additional appropriations. The Department of Justice should not be
permitted to augment those funding decisions entirely outside of the
congressional appropriations and oversight processes because they are
important to protect and preserve.
Again, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in
reining in the executive branch, and we cannot afford to weaken that
essential congressional power.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose this
amendment on institutional grounds, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and
particularly for this thoughtful amendment. I am from Flint; born and
raised in Flint. I represent Flint. I was here on the floor and I was
the one pushing for the legislation that the gentleman on the other
side mentioned that provided $120 million to help offset the cost of
this terrible tragedy.
When I introduced the first legislation, we calculated what the total
direct and indirect cost was: $1.5 billion.
Now, here is the point: again, we ought not put a community like
Flint in the position of having to depend on this Congress to fully
fund the total cost of that recovery, or another community that might
be facing a similar situation.
If the gentleman is sincere that Congress can act to help offset the
incredible indirect costs that my home community is facing, then I
would suggest the gentleman join me in my effort to do just that. So
far, Congress has not done that.
The notion that we would exempt the people of Flint from access to
the resources that could be determined by a court as being part of the
justice that they deserve is not an act that we ought to engage in.
Flint, as sad as this case is, is not an anomaly. Flint is a warning,
and when we need to make sure we heed that warning.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by
saying that no tragedy, however sad and however large, justifies us
deviating from our Constitution, from the way the Founders set up this
system and the way that this body operates. There is a reason that
these responsibilities were given to us as Members of Congress. Each of
us has the same challenge. When there is a tragedy or a mishap or a
natural disaster or anything that affects our districts, our job is to
come here and convince a sufficient number of our colleagues to support
those appropriations to handle those measures. The system is designed
with safeguards in place. It is designed so that the interests of the
entire Nation can be represented here in this Chamber. For that reason,
this amendment would bypass that. It would bypass the design. It would
bypass article I, and it would create a whole different way of
governing. We simply can't allow that.
Mr. Chair, this is about preserving the original intent of the
Constitution, preserving the power of this body. For that reason, I
oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
115-363 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 233, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 575]
AYES--187
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
[[Page H8126]]
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Huizenga
Joyce (OH)
Long
Lowenthal
Scalise
Trott
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1721
Messrs. JORDAN, DUNN, WALDEN, COMER, SIMPSON, BABIN, GROTHMAN, DENT,
and DUFFY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. JEFFRIES, DOGGETT, and Ms. SEWELL of
Alabama changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 235, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 576]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
[[Page H8127]]
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Griffith
NOT VOTING--13
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Huizenga
Joyce (OH)
Long
Lowenthal
Scalise
Shea-Porter
Trott
Wilson (FL)
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1726
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 234, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 577]
AYES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Huizenga
Joyce (OH)
Long
Lowenthal
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Trott
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1730
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 578]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
[[Page H8128]]
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Huizenga
Long
Lowenthal
MacArthur
Scalise
Trott
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1735
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 229, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 579]
AYES--191
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
[[Page H8129]]
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Comstock
Huizenga
Long
Lowenthal
Scalise
Trott
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1739
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Donovan, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 732) to
limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the
United States is a party, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 577, he reported the bill, as amended by that
resolution, back to the House with a further amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3898.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 183, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 580]
AYES--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Burgess
Huizenga
Long
Lowenthal
Scalise
Trott
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1747
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________