[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.

                          ____________________