[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11939-11958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS ACT OF 2016


                             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. 5063.
  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 843 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. 5063.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1400


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the

[[Page 11940]]

consideration of the bill (H.R. 5063) to limit donations made pursuant 
to settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Stewart 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.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) 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.
  Two years ago, the House Judiciary Committee commenced a pattern or 
practice investigation into the Justice Department's mortgage lending 
settlements. We found that the Department of Justice is systematically 
subverting Congress' spending power by requiring settling parties to 
donate money to activist groups.
  In just the last 2 years, the Department of Justice has directed 
nearly $1 billion to third parties entirely outside of Congress' 
spending and oversight authorities. Of that, over half a billion has 
already been disbursed or is committed to being disbursed. In some 
cases, these mandatory donation provisions reinstate funding Congress 
specifically cut.
  The spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in 
reining in the executive branch. This is true no matter which party is 
in the White House. A Democrat-led Congress passed the Cooper-Church 
amendment to end the Vietnam War. More recently, bipartisan funding 
restrictions blocked lavish salary and conference spending by Federal 
agencies and grantees. This policy control is lost if the executive 
gains authority over spending.
  Serious people on both sides of the aisle understand this. A former 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in 
the Clinton administration warned in 2009 that the Department of 
Justice has ``the ability to use settlements to circumvent the 
appropriations authority of Congress.''
  In 2008, a top Republican Department of Justice official restricted 
mandatory donation provisions because they ``can create actual or 
perceived conflicts of interest and/or other ethical issues.''
  Any objections to this bill would be unfounded. Whether the 
beneficiaries of these donations are worthy entities is entirely beside 
the point. The Constitution grants Congress the power to decide how 
money is spent, not the Department of Justice.
  This is not some esoteric point. It goes to the heart of the 
Constitution's separation of powers and Congress' ability to rein in 
executive overreach in practice.
  Nor does the bill restrict prosecutorial discretion. That discretion 
pertains to the decision to prosecute. Setting penalties and remedial 
policy is the proper purview of Congress.
  Opponents' central concern 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 a defendant's acts.
  Once those victims have been compensated, deciding what to do with 
additional funds extracted from defendants becomes a policy question 
properly decided by elected Representatives in Congress, not agency 
bureaucrats or prosecutors. It is not that DOJ officials will always be 
funding bad projects. It is that, outside of compensating actual 
victims, it is not their decision to make.
  Rather than suspend the practice of mandatory donations in response 
to these bipartisan concerns, the Department of Justice has doubled 
down. In April 2016, a major DOJ bank settlement required $240 million 
in financing and/or donations toward affordable housing.
  DOJ's June 2016 settlement with Volkswagen requires a $2 billion 
payment to fund the administration's green energy agenda. This payment 
cannot be justified as remedial because the settlement states 
explicitly that a separate $2.7 billion payment is intended to fully 
mitigate the harm caused.
  It is time for Congress to end this abuse. The Stop Settlement Slush 
Funds Act of 2016 bars mandatory donation terms in DOJ settlements. It 
is a bipartisan bill. It makes clear that payments to provide 
restitution for actual harm directly caused, including harm to the 
environment, are permitted.
  Do not be fooled by opponents' scare tactics. They claim that the 
legislation could prohibit conduct remedies used in settlements 
covering workplace discrimination, harassment, and consumer privacy. 
The bill does not preclude such remedies. Nothing bars DOJ 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 remedies itself, and is not 
required to outsource such set sums for the work to third parties who 
might be friendly with a given administration.
  This bill addresses an institutional issue. That is one reason 
similar language passed the House last year by voice vote. I thank all 
of the bill's cosponsors, and I urge the bill's passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016, H.R. 5063, 
would remove an important civil enforcement tool available to agencies 
to hold corporations accountable for the general harm caused by 
unlawful conduct.
  H.R. 5063 would have potentially disastrous, unintended consequences 
on the remediation of generalized harms in civil enforcement actions 
like the one that the chairman just noted at the very beginning of his 
speech. He talked about mortgage lending settlements that the 
Department of Justice had obtained after filing suit in court against 
Wall Street bankers who took billions of dollars in equity, home 
equity, from Americans throughout the country by way of predatory 
lending instruments, which blew up in their faces; caused the Wall 
Street meltdown. Wall Street got bailed out.
  The American people who had these mortgages that then were underwater 
lost their homes, so the Department of Justice sued, and this is what 
this legislation seeks to get at.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle don't want the common 
people of this country to have the protection of government. They want 
a government that is hands off; let the private sector, let the free 
market work its will. No rules. Whatever will be will be. The bottom 
line is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; and this 
legislation would work to enforce that economic philosophy that is held 
so dear by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  So these mortgage lending settlements, the DOJ sued the big banks. 
The big banks came to the table and decided to settle. As a result of 
the settlement, there were directives that were agreed to by the Wall 
Street banks, that they would give money to certified HUD counseling 
agencies.
  Those agencies have done a good job of helping people who have not 
lost their homes continue to stay in their homes, to get their 
mortgages refinanced, to get their situation in order, to give them the 
ability to hold on to their homes after they had lost their jobs and 
were unable to pay the mortgage for a number of months. These housing 
counseling agencies were able to be effective at keeping people in 
their homes, but my friends on the other side of the aisle, they don't 
want to have any part of that because it is costing their friends on 
Wall Street money.
  This same settlement that the chairman excoriated in his presentation 
just a minute ago, it gave money to State-based legal aid firms that 
were about helping people to avoid foreclosure, helping the very people 
that these banks stole from and hurt. So this is what they want to 
stop, and they cloak it in the--they say that Congress should be the 
one to appropriate money, and that is true.

[[Page 11941]]

  There is nothing about Article I, the legislative branch, Congress, 
that is a part of the lawsuit that the Justice Department, an Article 
II body, would file in a Federal court, an Article III court, that 
results in a settlement. There is no legislative implication in that 
whatsoever. There is no appropriations from the legislature.
  What it is is a court-enforced transfer of the very wealth that was 
stolen from the people, back to the people, by way of these agencies, 
which my colleague refers to as activist, third-party entities. Well, 
these are third-party entities that are acting on behalf of the very 
people who have been harmed.
  What this legislation seeks to do is to take away the ability of the 
Justice Department to obtain a settlement to help people who have been 
harmed, and then would force the money to come into the hands of the 
legislative branch so that the legislative branch could then 
appropriate it. And we know that this legislative branch controlled by 
the other side of the aisle is not interested in helping people who 
lost their homes due to Wall Street fraud.
  So that is what this legislation is all about, and it comes at a time 
when we have people who are afflicted with the Zika virus. We can't 
even pass legislation in this Chamber that would get at that public 
health emergency, which is right here on our doorstep where it is in 
the House now.
  This is an emergency. We have almost 2,000 babies born having been 
afflicted with the Zika virus. It's going to take $10 million for the 
remainder of their lives, average, to take care of them. That is $2 
billion right there.
  The President has come to us, months ago, requesting $1.9 billion--
less than the $2 billion--to fund operations to get at this Zika virus, 
to prevent it from taking hold, and we can't even pass it in this 
Congress because we are too busy passing bills to help Wall Street.
  That is not what the American people want. That is not what the 
American people need. I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Georgia and say that no one gets off the hook; not 
Wall Street, not anybody in this legislation.
  All we are saying is that if money goes, as a fine, it should either 
be paid into the general Treasury, as required by the law, or to actual 
victims of the wrongdoing by the parties. And if it is paid into the 
general Treasury, the Constitution requires that it be paid, that it be 
appropriated by this Congress, not by bureaucrats and prosecutors at 
the Department of Justice.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee and a great leader on this issue.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, our Constitution is under assault, so I rise today in 
support of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. A nearly 2-
year-long investigation jointly conducted by the Financial Services 
Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, and the Judiciary 
Committee, chaired by Mr. Goodlatte, the sponsor of this legislation, 
has shockingly revealed that the so-called Justice Department is not 
only pushing, but even requiring some defendants in settlements to send 
the fines not to victims, not to the U.S. Treasury, but, instead, to 
political allies of the Obama administration.
  As one commentator wrote: ``Imagine if the President of the United 
States forced America's biggest banks to funnel hundreds of millions--
and potentially billions--of dollars to the corporations and lobbyists 
who supported his agenda.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to imagine. It is real. It is 
happening. Mr. Chairman, our committees' investigation uncovered that 
the Obama Justice Department has done exactly this. They have used 
mandatory--mandatory--donations to direct as much as $880 million to 
political organizations that just so happen to be allies of the Obama 
administration.
  Now, I might expect to see such a corrupt practice in a place like 
Russia, but in the United States of America? How can this possibly be 
legal?
  These payments occur entirely outside of the transparent and 
accountable congressional appropriations and oversight process--a clear 
violation of Congress' Article I power of the purse, according to 
Article I, section 9 of our Constitution. By allowing for direct 
payments to nonvictim, third-party political organizations, the Justice 
Department is trampling upon the Constitution, threatening due process, 
threatening separation of powers, and threatening checks and balances. 
Mr. Chairman, there is simply no justice to be found in the Obama 
Justice Department.
  I also note the sheer hypocrisy of what the Obama administration is 
doing while self-righteously claiming to be ``tough on the big banks'' 
and all for ``protecting consumers,'' the Obama Justice Department's 
special deals for big banks actually give the big banks double credit 
or more toward their penalties for each ``donation'' made to political 
allies. This means these big banks could erase, potentially, hundreds 
of millions of dollars in Federal penalties this way, not to mention 
avoid giving the money to actual victims.
  Using cash to reward your political allies instead of helping victims 
who have been genuinely wronged is the epitome of what is unfair and 
wrong about this administration. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members--all 
Members--to protect the Constitution and to vote for H.R. 5063, the 
Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker spoke about 
how the banks, Wall Street banks, are able to get a break from the 
executive branch when they pay out these settlements, but those are 
matters of legislative action that has been passed by this Congress 
which coddles the banks and puts them in a position where they just 
simply can't lose. When it comes to these fines, as they call it, these 
are not fines. These are settlement amounts that are going to help the 
victims. They are not going to play politics anywhere. These are funds 
that are directed to entities which help the victims of the Wall Street 
excesses. So I want to make that clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act.
  The Republican majority likes to put creative names on their 
legislation, but what they call slush funds are really voluntary 
settlements between the government and corporate wrongdoers. These 
settlements sometimes include payments to third parties to address the 
generalized harms caused by corporate bad actors. But this bill would 
prohibit any payments to a third party unless the funds would be used 
to help only the people directly harmed by the defendants, not those 
who may have been harmed on a broader level by their actions. This is 
unnecessarily narrow and restrictive when trying to address the harm 
inflicted by corporate wrongdoers.
  Furthermore, the bill would restrict the flexibility of the 
government to resolve claims and make it harder to assist broad 
categories of people who are hurt by corporate malfeasance. For 
example, in the wake of the mortgage foreclosure crisis, the Department 
of Justice sued several big banks responsible for egregious misconduct 
that threw millions of people out of their homes and put millions more 
in peril, while the banks reaped massive profits. The banks agreed to 
resolve their claims by paying record-setting fines to the government 
in recognition of the tremendous damage they had caused. Under well-
established legal authority, some of these settlements also included 
payments to certain community organizations responsible for assisting 
homeowners and the communities devastated by the foreclosure crisis 
caused by the banks.
  These payments have had a dramatic effect. In New York State, thanks 
to the consumer relief funds from these settlements, more than 60,000 
people have received housing counseling and

[[Page 11942]]

legal services free of charge over the last 4 years. Almost one-third 
of these homeowners have consequently received a mortgage modification 
or have one pending.
  Other funds have gone to support community development institutions 
like land banks, which are nonprofit organizations formed by local and 
county governments. These land banks help cities address vacant and 
abandoned properties known as zombie homes, zombie homes that were 
created by the foreclosure crisis caused by the malfeasance of the big 
banks. Land banks acquire these properties, secure them, and 
rehabilitate them for resale as affordable housing, thereby increasing 
the tax rolls, reducing crime, and preserving property values for 
neighboring homeowners and undoing some of the damage done by the 
malfeasance of the banks. In just the last 3 years, land banks in New 
York have acquired more than 1,300 vacant and abandoned properties.
  Mr. Chairman, homeowners and cities are still struggling with the 
aftermath of the foreclosure crisis, and the third-party donations 
included in legal settlements have proven vital in helping those 
directly affected and those secondarily harmed by the banks' actions. 
These payments were mutually agreed-upon terms in a legal settlement, 
but Republicans call them slush funds. They went to nationally 
recognized community organizations or locally important community 
organizations doing important work to help homeowners in crisis, in 
crisis because of the actions by the malefactor banks.
  The majority sneers and calls these organizations activist groups. 
The majority was so outraged by these payments that they launched a 
burdensome investigation that yielded not a single shred of evidence of 
any wrongdoing by anyone. I don't know what the majority calls that, 
but I call it a waste of time.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a waste of time, too, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who would not yield but who 
continues to claim that this legislation helps these major financial 
institutions while he defends the Justice Department, which enters into 
agreements with these financial institutions that owe hundreds of 
millions of dollars--in many instances, billions of dollars--to the 
Treasury in fines as a result of these settlements, but say if you give 
money to our preferred third-party group that wasn't even injured as a 
part of this process, if you give the money to them instead of to the 
government, instead of to the taxpayers, instead of to the general 
Treasury, we will give you $2 off for every $1 you give them, $2 off 
the fine for every $1 you give them, $2 million off the fine for every 
$1 million you give them.
  It adds up pretty quickly, but the taxpayers are the ones taking a 
bath here. Guess who benefits. Those big banks that he says we are 
protecting? No. The Justice Department is protecting them, and this is 
why we need this legislation. It is the Congress that appropriates 
funds, not the bureaucrats and prosecutors in the Department of 
Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time and his 
leadership throughout the committee's investigation and as we have 
moved this important piece of legislation to the floor.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act focuses on accountability and 
governance. As we have heard here, this bill is the product of a nearly 
2-year-long House Judiciary Committee investigation into the Department 
of Justice's settlement practices. During that time, the Department of 
Justice has funneled nearly $1 billion of this settlement money to 
third-party groups that benefit this administration. But under Federal 
law--under Federal law--all money obtained through Department of 
Justice settlements must be deposited directly to the Treasury.
  Our concerns are not with the services provided by the groups 
receiving the money. They provide worthy services to individuals in 
need across the country. Nor are our concerns along party lines. Good 
governance and accountability apply to Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike.
  This piece of legislation focuses on concerted and repeated actions 
that have subverted the will of Congress, disrespected our separation 
of powers, and failed to assist the individuals directly harmed by the 
behavior warranting the settlements. The Judiciary Committee's 
investigation has revealed that entities with access to high-ranking 
Department of Justice officials received the funds.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act will end this practice without 
limiting the Department of Justice's ability to reach settlements that 
directly provide restitution to those harmed. It does not block the 
ability to provide restitution for victims. Instead, it ensures that 
money belonging to the U.S. Treasury and, therefore, to the American 
people is not siphoned off for the pet projects of political 
appointees.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support good governance, 
accountability, and the powers granted to Congress and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just can't believe what I 
heard the gentleman from Virginia say about the big banks being coddled 
by the Justice Department, being given a break. So he is complaining 
that the big banks are being given a break, but then the purpose of 
this legislation is to take the big banks off of the hook. It is 
ironic.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee. I acknowledge the chairman of the full 
committee and, as well, the ranking member of the full committee.
  I am going to announce some breaking news. The Judiciary Committee 
gets along. We do a lot of good work together. I am looking forward to 
moving legislation dealing with a number of good policy suggestions and 
legislative initiatives involving the criminal justice system. I hope 
we can continue to work together.
  But I would raise concern as to this legislation, and I raise it in 
the context of all that this Congress has to do. I would also raise it 
in the context that the administration has indicated on this bill, H.R. 
5063, the misnamed Stop Settlement Slush Funds--totally misnamed--a 
veto threat. We don't know whether anyone in the United States Senate, 
the other body, has any interest in this legislation at all.
  So in the meantime, there are any number of issues that should be 
addressed. My State of Texas is suffering under the threat of the Zika 
virus. The State of Florida is already in the eye of the storm, Puerto 
Rico, all of the Gulf States, maybe as far reaching as New York. That 
work needs to be done. The children of Flint are still asking us to 
respond to their concerns. The people of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are 
still asking us to respond to the devastation that they are facing. Yet 
we deal with legislation that has totally misconstrued what has been 
done by the Department of Justice.
  It is important to note that it is not unconstitutional. There is no 
breach of the Constitution by way of what is going on here.
  First of all, it is not billions of dollars. It is minute in the 
course of helping individuals--$50 million--less than 1.1 percent of a 
total settlement of $23.5 billion.
  We know that the Congressional Research Service must be nonpartisan. 
All of us use the Congressional Research Service. I would venture to 
say that it is one of the most nonpartisan, independent entities that 
we have. He has indicated twice that the settlements are lawful. I 
said, Mr. Chairman, lawful. That is my concern with this misnamed 
legislation. This legislation hurts the vulnerable and victims.

[[Page 11943]]



                              {time}  1430

  This legislation is not dealing with the crux of the issue. These are 
settlements engaging in agencies. These are not appropriated dollars. 
These are judgments within the context of the court. What is happening 
is that, out of the settlement, the agency is attempting to help people 
to help victims.
  Let me give you an example as it relates to HUD counseling. Just a 
few days ago, we saw mention of the ongoing concerns involving 
foreclosures. Many people may think that that is a thing of the past, 
but it is not. It is clearly something that is important to many 
people.
  Working with HUD counseling organizations, they are providing 
resources to help individuals get out of the pit of a foreclosure. It 
is well known that if individuals get counseling, they are nearly three 
times more likely to obtain a money-saving mortgage modification.
  If an individual family all over this Nation was to get that, they 
would be more likely to receive a payment reduction of approximately 
$61 a month greater, on average, than noncounseled homeowners. They 
would be nearly twice as likely to get their mortgage back on track 
without a modification. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, a family of four, six, 
eight, or nine might not get kicked out of their house because of HUD 
counseling resources that have been given through a settlement, not 
forced through a settlement, not oppressed and overbearing, but through 
a settlement, through a legal justified settlement.
  What would our friends want us to do? To ignore these people.
  Counseling would bring about, if necessary, an ability to complete 
short sales faster than homeowners who don't work with housing 
counselors and about 60 percent less likely to re-default after curing 
a serious delinquency.
  That is the kind of agency that is being called some kind of slush 
fund. This is totally skewed into the needs of our citizens, and it is 
opposed by individuals who work with our citizens--clean water action, 
individuals who work dealing with consumers, the National Council of La 
Raza, employment lawyers, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the 
National Urban League. These are organizations that can document that 
they help people in their worst needs.
  Who is helping to assist in the Baton Rouge floods after FEMA? It 
will probably be a lot of nonprofits dealing with housing counseling.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. So what I argue today is that we are within the 
confines of the law. It is a minute portion. It is not the billions of 
dollars that have been represented. It is certainly not a slush fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article from the Houston 
Chronicle, dated Sunday, September 4, 2016. It involves shooting 
victims. These are the survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting. And 
guess what. The theater prevailed. They didn't have to pay a dime. They 
didn't have to have any check as to whether or not their doors could 
have been more secure. They could have had security, but it said the 
shooting survivors owe $700,000 to the theater.
  Do you want to hear who one of the victims was? Let me just share 
with you a victim who just couldn't bring herself to accept. I feel 
sorry. Her suffering had been profound. Her child was killed in the 
shooting. She was left paralyzed, and the baby she was carrying had 
been lost. Do you know what she got? Zero, zero, zero. I just wish the 
Justice Department could have shared a resource with her or a group or 
the class action lawsuit that was thrown out of court causing them to 
have to pay $700,000 to the theater.
  This bill does not deal with those in need. Vote against this bill.

  (The following article appeared on September 4, 2016 in the Houston 
                              Chronicle:)

                      [From the Los Angeles Times]

                Shooting Survivors Owe $700K to Theater

                            (By Nigel Duara)

       Denver.--They had survived brain damage, paralysis and the 
     deaths of their children. For four years, they met in secret 
     as a group. Now, they were finally prepared to settle with 
     the Aurora, Colo., movie theater that became the site of one 
     of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history.
       On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case 
     told the plaintiffs' attorneys that he was prepared to rule 
     in the theater chain's favor. He urged the plaintiffs to 
     settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 
     multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They 
     had 24 hours.
       But before that deadline, the settlement would collapse and 
     15 survivors of the massacre would be ordered to pay the 
     theater chain more than $700,000.
       The settlement conference, corroborated by the Los Angeles 
     Times with four parties present at the conference, was 
     hastily convened after a separate set of survivors suffered 
     defeat in state court, where a jury decided that Cinemark 
     could not have foreseen the events of that night in 2012, 
     when James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 others in a 
     10-minute rampage at a screening of ``The Dark Knight 
     Rises.''
       In the federal case, survivors agreed to split $150,000 
     among 41 plaintiffs. The deal came with an implied threat: If 
     the survivors rejected the deal, moved forward with their 
     case and lost, under Colorado law, they would be responsible 
     for the astronomical court fees accumulated by Cinemark.
       Then one plaintiff rejected the deal. Her suffering had 
     been profound: Her child was killed in the shooting, she was 
     left paralyzed and the baby she was carrying had been lost.
       None of the plaintiffs would receive a dime.
       Although a source close to the theater chain said that 
     there is no intention to actually seek recovery of the court 
     costs, the theater chain has not issued any statement about 
     its intentions.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who 
is a valued member of the Judiciary Committee, and we do work on 
bipartisan issues. I will say that this issue is bipartisan as well, 
and she should take note of the fact that it is also bicameral. The 
United States Senate is, indeed, interested in this issue. The bill 
that we are considering in the House has also been introduced in the 
Senate by Senator Lankford from Oklahoma.
  Also very, very importantly, it is important to understand that when 
the Congress appropriates funds, it is the duty of the executive branch 
to carry out the appropriations made by the Congress, not to go out and 
change those decisions.
  The gentlewoman talks about housing counseling. Well, the Congress 
appropriates funds for housing counseling, has and will continue to do 
so, I am sure. When we cut back on some of those funds--it is still a 
lot of funds. When we cut back on some, I guess there were some people, 
some bureaucrats in the Justice Department who felt that that was not 
the right thing to do. Or maybe it was the organizations that receive 
these funds that couldn't get them from the Congress, so instead they 
went over to the Justice Department and said: Well, when you get 
settlements from these big banks, make sure that you give some of those 
funds to us.
  Well, that actually subverts the direct intent of the Congress in 
terms of how much money to spend. The funds are owed to the Treasury of 
the United States and to the people who are directly the victims of 
wrongdoing. They should definitely be compensated. If they are 
compensated as a part of a settlement that any Justice Department 
prosecutor enters into, they should benefit from that.
  People who are not victims need to go through the appropriations 
process, come to the Congress for funding. If the Congress doesn't give 
them the funding they want, they shouldn't have other places to go in 
the Federal Government to get that money by simply going around the 
Congress and going to the Justice Department, having them take money 
that is supposed to go into the Treasury and then be appropriated by 
the Congress, and say: No, no, we will beef you back up in terms of the 
amount of money for housing counseling and put that money, instead, to 
you directly here without it going through the appropriations process 
in the people's House.
  That is what we are trying to fix here. It is a very, very important 
thing

[[Page 11944]]

that we fix and a very important principle that we protect in our 
Constitution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Even though the Senate may take up this ill-fated measure, the 
President has promised to veto it. So what we are doing here today is 
another messaging bill that distracts the American people perhaps from 
the more important issues of the day, such as the spreading of this 
public health crisis, the Zika virus, which is afflicting almost 17,000 
Americans infected by mosquitos carrying the Zika virus--17,000 
people--200 babies born, 1,600 infected women.
  This is a crisis that is going to cost the American people from a 
public health perspective. It is going to cost the lives of the unborn 
whose mothers are afflicted with this virus, giving birth to them, and 
they have the virus and suffer from microcephaly, a shrunken head and 
brain which renders them severely developmentally impacted as they make 
it through life and add a severe burden to the taxpayers. Instead of 
dealing with this issue, we took a 7-week vacation and refused to come 
back to work to deal with the Zika virus.
  At the same time as we have got the Zika virus, a public health issue 
afflicting the Nation, we are also seeing more and more and more people 
dying from opioid abuse in this country. This Congress has been 
insufficient in dealing with this, applying the resources to deal with 
that issue.
  We have got the issue of Flint, Michigan, where lead was found in the 
water. This Congress has done absolutely nothing to address the 
financial implications of that and what we can do to help remediate it 
and to keep it from happening.
  Now we get East Chicago, Indiana, with people living atop a lead 
dump, basically, thousands of people impacted, and this Congress will 
do nothing.
  That is not to mention anything about the other public health problem 
that afflicts the Nation, and that is the ongoing gun violence issue, 
which this Congress will do nothing about other than to hold a hearing 
on this coming Friday to censure those of us who had the gall to sit in 
the well of this House Chamber to demand that this body take some 
action. What did the body do back then? It adjourned for 7 weeks.
  This is a spectacle that the American people are looking at. You 
can't help but to see it. You can't help but to understand it. The 
American people are being adversely impacted by the policies of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. They have caught a bad case of 
the Trump syndrome, the Trump syndrome which causes people to forget 
about the truth, forget about reality, start seeing things the way that 
they want to see them, and they don't care what impact it has on the 
American people. All they want to do is be able to retain their 
positions, although they say that they hate government, they want to be 
here so that they can shrink government, make it smaller, leave 
everything to the private sector, and leave the American people fending 
for themselves.
  We have had that happening for much too long. That is what the 
American people are so angry about on both sides of the aisle. That is 
why the mainstream portion of the other side of the aisle has 
completely lost control of their apparatus. We have the Trump syndrome 
that has taken hold, and this body is sick because it is being led by 
folks who have fallen victim to the Trump syndrome. Enough is enough. 
The American people are sick and tired of it.
  With respect to Congress appropriating funds, this Congress still has 
to pass a budget. But you are talking about dealing with what is called 
a slush fund, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. They say 
that Congress should be the one to allocate resources; it shouldn't 
come out of a settlement. Well, the fact is that there are no public 
dollars coming to fruition in a settlement between a big bank and the 
Justice Department. Those are all privately held funds that are being 
disgorged from the wrongdoer and placed back in the service of the very 
people that were harmed by the wrongdoing of the big banks. There is no 
legislative appropriation there because there is no public money. It is 
private money, but it is being redirected to those from whom it was 
wrongfully taken. That is what makes this legislation so hurtful to the 
process.
  I would ask my colleagues to, again, be in opposition to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my chairman--or my ranking member. I say 
``chairman'' in a very hopeful way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is much 
appreciated in the clarity of his analysis and his commitment for us to 
use, if we can, the right terminology when we are approaching these 
subjects, because this bill would prohibit the enforcement or 
negotiation of any settlement agreement requiring donations to 
remediate harms that are not directly and proximately caused by a 
party's unlawful conduct.
  My opposition to this measure, to begin with, is that the bill will 
prohibit the use of various types of settlement agreements that have 
been successfully used to remedy various harms caused by reckless 
corporate actors. For example, these settlement agreements have been 
utilized to facilitate an effective response to predatory and 
fraudulent mortgage lending activities that nearly caused the economic 
collapse of our Nation.

                              {time}  1445

  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 help affected 
consumers.
  H.R. 5063 is a dangerous measure that would undermine the ability of 
civil enforcement agencies to hold wrongdoers accountable and to 
provide complete relief to victims.
  A broad coalition of public interest organizations, including the 
Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, the National Fair 
Housing Alliance, and the National Urban League, notes that this bill 
is a gift to lawbreakers that comes at the expense of families and 
communities that are impacted by injuries that cannot be addressed by 
direct restitution. The National Council of La Raza, which is the 
largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in our 
country, similarly notes that H.R. 5063 is a far-reaching and misguided 
solution to a nonexistent problem.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this bill clearly and to oppose this 
flawed legislation.
  I thank the leader of this measure on the floor today, the gentleman 
from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
of course, the National Council of La Raza would not like this 
legislation because the National Council of La Raza is the largest 
beneficiary of what the Justice Department is doing. They are getting 
the money. They are one of the largest recipients. So I am not at all 
surprised to hear that they wouldn't like us to stop this cozy 
relationship in which they go to the Justice Department and say, ``Hey, 
we need more money,'' and the Justice Department says, ``Okay. In the 
next settlement we do, we will send some of that money over to you.'' 
This is an abuse. It is clearly a slush fund, and it needs to be 
stopped.
  I prefer to focus on institutional concerns with mandatory donations 
rather than on the nature of the recipients. However, there is no 
ignoring the troubling May 19, 2016, testimony to the Financial 
Services Committee that the donation beneficiaries were ``Democrat 
special interests.'' These include the Neighborhood Assistance 
Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a ``bank 
terrorist.'' Documents

[[Page 11945]]

show that the groups that benefited from mandatory donation provisions 
actively lobbied the DOJ to include them.
  The bill's opponents have proffered a series of specious arguments. 
The principal ones I refuted earlier. The others I will address now.
  We are told that required donations represent just a fraction of the 
overall settlement amounts. That is true, but irrelevant. In absolute 
terms, there is a tremendous amount of money--nearly $1 billion--
flowing to activist groups at the unilateral discretion of the 
executive just in these financial service industry settlements and 
another $2 billion more for the Volkswagon settlement. In any event, 
the $1 billion is over twice the annual Congressional appropriation for 
the Legal Services Corporation and is a huge windfall to the recipient 
organizations. An analysis of 80 beneficiaries of the Bank of America 
settlement revealed that, on average, the DOJ required donations 
accounted for more than 10 percent of their 2015 budgets. Such largesse 
should not be conferred unilaterally.
  Critics contend that there is insufficient evidence that the DOJ 
structured the settlements to direct funds to activist groups. This is 
disingenuous. The opposition knows that the DOJ refuses to let the 
committee make the most troubling documents it found public.
  Opponents also argued that mandatory donations are plainly lawful; 
but the House Financial Services Committee heard from three experts 
that mandatory donations are an unconstitutional subversion of 
Congress' spending power. That view is echoed by former President 
Clinton's own head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal 
Counsel. Yet, even if these payments were not unlawful, they are 
definitely bad policy, which is precisely why legislation should 
prohibit them.
  Another unfounded objection is that it is unrealistic for Congress to 
legislate redress every time a violation occurs that causes generalized 
harm.
  In the banking settlements, the housing groups that received 
donations were in categories that were already specifically receiving 
grants from Congress. This shows that the infrastructure to direct 
funding to community projects is already in place.
  The Department of Justice could also recommend to Congress, for 
example, as part of the President's budget, projects to fund that 
address generalized harm.
  Finally, as the renowned liberal legal scholar and former D.C. 
circuit judge, Abner Mikva, has explained, on this point, efficiency is 
outweighed by the principles of representative government. The Founders 
knew the spending power was ``the most far-reaching and effectual,'' 
and they wanted to ``ensure Congress would act as the first branch of 
government.'' Accordingly, they understood Congress ``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.''
  This bipartisan legislation is a critical opportunity to marry 
oversight with action and to effectuate the Founders' vision of 
Congress' spending power as key to reining in the executive branch. 
This is a commonsense bill, the objections to which are unfounded; so I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, I will vote against H.R. 5063, a 
bill that would prohibit the federal government from entering into 
settlement agreements that include payments directed to appropriate 
third parties. This bill, if enacted, would defang federal civil 
enforcement agencies as they seek to address and provide restitution 
for illegal actions that threaten a community's health and safety and 
the environment, and to prevent the recurrence of those illegal 
actions.
  The harms caused by, for instance, violations of environmental laws, 
predatory lending by financial institutions, and workplace exposure to 
toxic chemicals, harm individuals and our communities. These harms can 
be difficult to adequately compensate. Settlements that only require 
payments to those directly harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the 
enforcement action fails to adequately capture the full cost of 
unlawful conduct.
  For decades, the United States government has entered into settlement 
agreements with defendants to pay for the direct harms they have 
caused. In many instances, these settlements also include payments to 
organizations that advance programs assisting with the recovery of a 
community harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action. 
The ability of the federal government to direct payments from these 
settlements to third parties is often the best way to hold wrongdoers 
accountable for the indirect harm done to the public at large.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I 
offered an amendment to rename it Another Wall Street Request to Avoid 
Accountability for Fraud. But, my amendment for a more accurate title 
was not accepted.
  Today, the majority wants to defund the organizations and attorneys 
that help people have a fighting chance against deep-pocketed multi-
national corporations and banks.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress returns after a seven-week district work 
period. During that time, I held many constituent meetings. Not one 
person asked me to weaken regulations on hedge fund managers or Wall 
Street bankers. And yet, Wall Street requests are what the majority 
prioritized for our first week back.
  This bill would defund the network of housing counselors and legal 
aid attorneys who help homeowners facing foreclosure.
  Homeowners who were tricked into buying a home with teaser rates that 
exploded into unaffordable payments.
  Homeowners who deserved a chance to catch up after a missed payment 
or two but were unable to get a response from their lender.
  And homeowners like Alan Schroit. Alan, a retired cancer researcher, 
visited his rental house in Galveston, Texas. He found the locks had 
been changed, the electricity shut off and a notice on the door said 
Bank of America was foreclosing on his home. Alan did not have a 
mortgage with Bank of America. Alan didn't even have a mortgage. His 
home was paid off. It took him 30 days to get someone at Bank of 
America to call him back.
  Homeowners like Nilly Mauck who lost all her possessions when a 
company mistakenly evicted her instead of her neighbor.
  Or homeowners like Charlie and Maria Cardoso who bought their 
retirement home with cash in 2005. While they continued living in their 
primary home, they rented their retirement home out. Their tenants came 
home one day to find the house cleared of all the possessions--again by 
Bank of America.
  Nilly, Alan and Charlie and Maria's foreclosures were some of 
thirteen million between 2006-2010. Far too many of them were 
fraudulent, people foreclosed on by firms who did not have clear title 
to the property. A significant number of these foreclosures could have 
been prevented if the lenders involved had followed the law. The new 
book, Chain of Title, by David Dayen reports that across our nation, 
homeowners who should have received assistance with a loan 
modification, or allowed to cure a delinquency, instead were hit with 
outrageous late fines, sold over-priced forced-placed insurance, 
punished with monthly property inspection and other junk fees. Using 
robo-signing, their eviction papers were signed by people who had no 
ownership of the loan.
  Congress and the states demanded change. Legal settlements pursued by 
the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the banking regulators and the states made sure that 
people have a fighting chance against deep-pocketed multi-national 
corporations.
  And yes, to correct this massive wrongdoing required that Bank of 
America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Ally Financial and others pay 
fines. Some of those fines supported nonprofit agencies who knew how to 
get banks to respond to homeowners and follow the law. The funds 
supported legal aid attorneys who knew how to ensure the banking doing 
the eviction actually had a right to the property. When lenders 
foreclose on the wrong people, or lie about their ownership of a 
mortgage, there should be consequences.
  When we require banks to fund housing counseling and legal aid 
agencies, we leveled the playing field. We realized it was unfair to 
require each individual person to figure out the unresponsive, 
complicated and too often predatory home mortgage market on their own.
  I oppose gutting initiatives to help homeowners, small business 
owners and families do battle with global corporations who have 
defrauded them out of their home or business, polluted their water or 
land or harmed their health.
  Therefore I will oppose H.R. 5063.
  I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page 11946]]

  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 5063

       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 2016''.

     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 to any person or entity 
     other than the United States, other than a payment 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 
     constitutes payment for services rendered in connection with 
     the case.
       (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.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 114-724. Each such 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. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  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: ``(other than an excepted settlement agreement)''.
       Page 4, strike line 1, and insert the following:
       (d) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) The term ``excepted settlement agreement'' means a 
     settlement agreement that resolves a civil action or 
     potential civil action in relation to discrimination based on 
     race, religion, national origin, or any other protected 
     category.
       (2) The term ``settlement agreement''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, 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 the 
legislation settlement agreements that provide payments to third 
parties as general relief for violations of title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
  Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of 
race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Plaintiffs in 
employment discrimination cases typically seek payment and other relief 
for economic losses that result from unlawful employer conduct. These 
cases often involve multiple victims who are subjected to the same 
widespread discriminatory employment practice or policy that violate 
the Civil Rights Act. They also tend to affect the interests of persons 
who are not parties to the civil action or who are otherwise unlikely 
to receive compensation for unlawful conduct.
  Given the often systemic nature of discriminatory conduct, settlement 
agreements should be able to provide relief for non-identifiable 
victims through such means as requiring payments to address generalized 
harm or to prevent future discriminatory acts. Examples include 
workplace monitoring and training programs. Nevertheless, H.R. 5063 
would prohibit these types of payment remedies unless they provide 
restitution for actual harm directly and proximately caused by the 
party making the payment.
  At last month's hearing on the bill, Professor David Uhlmann of the 
University of Michigan Law School testified that this requirement would 
potentially preclude all third-party payments and settlement agreements 
other than restitution to identifiable victims. The majority's own 
witness, our former colleague, Daniel Lungren, who previously served as 
California State Attorney General, concurred. He observed that the bill 
prohibits the United States Government from entering into a settlement 
agreement that requires a defendant to donate to an organization or 
individual who is not a party to the litigation.
  I am concerned that the bill's broad and ill-defined prohibition 
would effectively deter civil enforcement agencies from providing 
general relief in discrimination cases, would discourage courts from 
enforcing these settlements, and would invite costly and needless 
litigation concerning these provisions. Accordingly, my amendment would 
accept payments to remediate generalized harms in settlement agreements 
in this important category of civil rights cases.
  I am indebted to and thank my colleagues: the gentleman from Georgia, 
who is leading this opposition to the measure--the ranking member of 
the Committee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law--as 
well as the gentleman from New York, Congressman Meeks, for co-
sponsoring this amendment. I urge its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment 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. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 
explicitly permits remedial payments to third-party victims who were 
wrongly and proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing; nor does 
the bill preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases. 
Nothing in the bill bars the Department of Justice, for example, 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 that 
might be friendly with a given administration.
  I also say to the gentleman from Michigan that former Congressman Dan 
Lungren of California, a distinguished former colleague of ours on the 
House Judiciary Committee, was instrumental in helping us move this 
legislation forward and is a supporter of the legislation, 
notwithstanding the comments of the gentleman's that might confuse 
people as to what his position was. He strongly supports this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  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 ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.

[[Page 11947]]




                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  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: ``(other than an excepted settlement agreement)''.
       Page 4, strike line 1, and insert the following:
       (d) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) The term ``excepted settlement agreement'' means a 
     settlement agreement that pertains to the protection of the 
     privacy of Americans.
       (2) The term ``settlement agreement''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, 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. Chairman, my amendment would exempt settlement 
agreements that strengthen the personal privacy of Americans from the 
blanket prohibition in this legislation. More specifically, it would 
preserve the ability of civil enforcement agencies to compel large 
corporations to adopt programs to protect consumer data.
  Under this bill, these agencies would be prohibited from reaching 
settlement agreements that provide payments to nongovernmental parties. 
It would only exempt payments to provide restitution for actual harm 
directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment. As a 
result, H.R. 5063 would potentially prohibit payments for required 
monitoring and other payments for generalized harm due to privacy 
breaches.
  As Professor David Uhlmann of the University of Michigan Law School 
pointed out during the subcommittee hearing for this bill, it could 
``preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other 
than restitution to identifiable victims.''
  This is particularly problematic in the consumer privacy context 
where the harms may be diffuse or systemic. In such instances, the most 
appropriate remedy may involve prescribing steps that effectively 
prevent future misconduct rather than ones that focus exclusively on 
addressing previous faults. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission 
has used its authority under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act to resolve 
complaints involving unfair or deceptive practices.
  As part of settlement agreements for these complaints, the FTC 
typically requires the offending party to adopt a series of 
preventative privacy measures. These requirements usually include 
employee training and monitoring requirements, third-party auditing, 
regular testing of privacy control and procedures, and other reasonable 
steps to maintain data security practices consistent with the 
underlying settlement.
  These steps are not frivolous, and the payments involved are not 
opaque contributions to any so-called slush funds. To the contrary, 
these programs are carefully tailored to protect consumer privacy. Such 
agreements are an important and substantive component of the toolbox 
that enforcement agencies have at their disposals. But under the terms 
of H.R. 5063, these programs would be likely prohibited since they do 
not provide restitution to an identifiable victim or a party to the 
litigation.
  The majority claims that their bill would allow for monitoring, but 
that is unclear in the language and, at best, would have to be 
litigated by the courts. Moreover, any monitoring allowed by this 
language would be done by the very defendant paying restitution in 
these cases, which defies best practices, especially in privacy cases.
  In cases of data breaches, in which it is frequently impossible to 
identify all victims of a leak, it is common to put funds into victim 
relief funds or consumer privacy funds, which would be prohibited by 
this legislation as well.
  My amendment would simply ensure that these agreements, which protect 
the privacy of American consumers, are not endangered by this bill's 
vague and broad prohibition on payments in settlement agreements.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The amendment 
would exempt settlement agreements pertaining to the protection of 
Americans' privacy, but nothing in the underlying bill prevents victims 
of a privacy invasion from obtaining relief.
  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 privacy cases.
  Nothing in the bill bars DOJ from requiring a defendant to implement 
measures to strengthen privacy. The ban on third-party payments merely 
ensures that the defendant remains responsible for performing these 
privacy-strengthening tasks 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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, with increased opportunities 
for private organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate 
sensitive private information of citizens, it is critical that we not 
prevent or delay enforcement of consumer protection laws designed to 
protect Americans' privacy rights.
  As Professor David Uhlmann of Michigan Law noted during the hearing 
on H.R. 5063, this measure ``fails to adequately address the fact that 
generalized harm arises in civil cases,'' including cases brought under 
consumer protection laws under section 5 of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act.
  H.R. 5063 only exempts payments to parties other than the government 
to provide restitution for actual harm ``directly and proximately 
caused by the party making the payment.'' Congress has expressly 
granted authority to the Federal Trade Commission, however, to resolve 
complaints against corporations for unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices under section 5 of the FTC Act.
  As part of resolving potential civil liability of corporations for 
unlawful conduct, FTC settlement agreements typically require parties 
to address generalized harms of unlawful conduct by adopting a privacy 
program, employee training and monitoring requirements, third-party 
auditing, regular testing of privacy controls and procedures, and other 
reasonable steps to maintain security practices consistent with the 
underlying settlement.
  The protection of Americans' privacy is not a Democratic or a 
Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few that those across the 
political spectrum have long embraced, including my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. Yet, notwithstanding these shared concerns, 
this bill could impose burdensome requirements on settlement agreements 
that are intended to protect privacy.
  I voice my support for the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, 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 ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 Rhode Island 
will be postponed.

[[Page 11948]]




               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  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 1, 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 843, 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 want to, again, reiterate that words 
do matter. The naming of this bill, unfortunately, skews and distorts a 
legitimate right that agencies in litigation have.
  In particular, I want to take note of the fact, again--I think it is 
always important to set the record straight--that the settlement 
donations have been 1.1 percent of $23.5 billion, that a government-
independent entity has indicated that these settlements are lawful. The 
sledgehammer effect that has been taken in order to ensure that we stop 
victims, innocent persons from getting some relief is unbelievable.
  So the Jackson Lee amendment No. 3 would address the problematic 
concern with H.R. 5063, which would only exempt payments to third 
parties to provide restitution for actual harm directly and proximately 
caused by the party making the payment.
  The Jackson Lee amendment No. 3 would carve out an additional 
exemption to enable States to act as third-party actors with the 
ability to remedy generalized harm for mass injuries where the actual 
party responsible for directly or proximately causing the harm is 
there.
  For example, the Jackson Lee amendment No. 3 would allow for States, 
such as Texas and other Gulf Coast States, to address the environmental 
harms resulting in settlement agreements to impacted parties such as 
those harmed by a variety of man-made disasters.
  I urge adoption of this particular amendment because, again, it would 
provide an opportunity for States to remediate generalized harm of 
unlawful conduct beyond harms to identifiable victims.
  I believe, in particular, the bill here that we have would ban the 
following entirely legitimate, appropriate uses of SEP funds that are 
currently permitted by EPA: pollution prevention projects that improve 
plant procedures and technologies and/or operation and maintenance 
practices that will prevent additional pollution at its source.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3 exempts from H.R. 5063 
settlement agreements that pertain to providing restitution for a 
State.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 5063, as currently drafted, is flawed and misguided.
  This bill seeks to exempt only those payments to parties other than 
the government to provide restitution for actual harm ``directly and 
proximately caused by the party making the payment.''
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3 which 
seeks to address the additional case exception for those instances 
where funds are directed to states to remediate the generalized harm of 
unlawful conduct beyond harms to identifiable victims.
  One clear example of where such an exemption is needed is concerning 
the Deepwater Horizon Settlement agreements directing payments to 
states as third parties for general remediation of harms.
  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 party to the complaint, 
but received $3.25 million for SEPs and other responsive actions.
  Professor Joel Mintz of Nova Southeastern University College of Law, 
a former chief attorney with the EPA, noted in his written statement on 
H.R. 5063, that the proposed bill would prohibit these agreements.
  That is, many of the important benefits now provided by EPA's SEPs 
program would be excluded by H.R. 5063.
  The bill's definition, according to Professor Mintz, 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.''
  As such, this exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous 
beneficial uses of SEP monies.
  Thus, for example, the bill would appear to ban the following 
entirely legitimate, appropriate uses of SEP funds that are currently 
permitted by EPA:
  Pollution prevention projects that improve plant procedures and 
technologies, and/or operation and maintenance practices, that will 
prevent additional pollution at its source;
  Environmental restoration projects including activities that protect 
local ecosystems from actual or potential harm resulting from the 
violation;
  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;
  Programs that promote environmental compliance by promoting training 
or technical support to other members of the regulated community; and
  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 types of 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.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3 would eliminate this harmful 
prohibition by implementing a common sense exception for these very 
types of cases.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
Amendment No. 3.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt settlements 
providing restitution to a State, but that is unnecessary. Nothing in 
the underlying bill prevents States that have been wronged from 
obtaining restitution. 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, which 
would include States.
  If there is no State that is a true victim, the defendant is not let 
off the hook. It still must pay. But in the absence of direct victims, 
the money goes to the U.S. Treasury. That is appropriate because if the 
State is not a direct victim, accountable Representatives in Congress, 
not agency bureaucrats, should decide whether the State should receive 
money recovered by the Federal Government.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, quite the contrary to my dear friend, 
this bill is unclear. It is not clear. So victims are impacted 
positively by environmental restoration projects, including activities 
to protect local ecosystems, facility assessments and audits, including 
investigations of local environmental quality, programs that promote 
environmental compliance, projects that provide technical assistance or 
equipment.

[[Page 11949]]

  Each of these types of programs provide important protections of 
human health and the environment in communities that have been harmed 
by environmental violations and others.
  It is not clear whether or not these kinds of projects or programs 
that the State may be able to utilize are, in fact, able to be utilized 
in this legislation. That is why I offer amendment No. 3.
  Again, I will raise the terrible headline of victims having to pay 
$700,000. Let's not make victims pay by this underlying bill, H.R. 
5063. Let's support the Jackson Lee amendment that takes into 
consideration the victims who need to be compensated and provide a 
pathway for restoration.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment No. 3.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
say, again, that direct victims, like the one that the gentlewoman has 
cited, in a terrible case are not in any way affected by this 
legislation because they can be compensated.
  It is the reappropriating of funds, if you will, to people who are 
not in any way harmed by the underlying lawsuit that is our complaint 
because those dollars should be coming to the U.S. Treasury to be 
appropriated by the people's elected Representatives here in the House 
of Representatives.
  For that reason, I oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in opposing this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 4 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 1, and insert the following:
       (d) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) The term ``excepted settlement agreement'' means a 
     settlement agreement that resolves a civil action or 
     potential civil action in relation to sexual harassment, 
     violence, or discrimination in the workplace.
       (2) The term ``settlement agreement''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, 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, again, as I have indicated, there are 
victims that are not in the purview or even in the eyesight of this 
legislation that will be harmed by this legislation.
  The Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would address the problematic concern 
with H.R. 5063, which would only provide an exemption for payments to 
parties, other than the government, to provide restitution for actual 
harm directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment. 
The Jackson Lee amendment would provide an exemption for cases where 
funds are necessary to remedy generalized harm, other than for 
restitution, to specific or immediately identifiable victims.
  In particular, Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would allow the Federal 
Government to engage with third parties that help carry out settlement 
agreements--again, settlement agreements--dollars that are under the 
purview of the settlement and that are minute in distribution, 
indicated 1.1 percent, in furtherance of resolution of the civil action 
or potential civil action in specific relation to sexual harassment, 
violence, or discrimination in the workplace.

                              {time}  1515

  Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would carve out this additional exception 
to protect such actions and the ability to provide the mediators or 
other third parties to intervene on behalf of civil action litigants.
  It is clear that we have had a number of civil rights violations in 
this country. We are not yet through with overcoming discrimination in 
many aspects of life, particularly in workplace discrimination.
  For instance, in the settlement of an EEOC sexual harassment case of 
female laundry workers, a consent decree resolving the case provides 
that in addition to paying $582,000, Suffolk Laundry will adopt new 
procedures to prevent sexual harassment and will train its managers and 
staff on identifying and preventing sexual harassment and retaliation. 
The policies and staff training will be available in Spanish. EEOC will 
monitor Suffolk Laundry's compliance with these obligations and title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a period of 4 years.
  Because of this consent decree, these women will receive due 
compensation for the abuse they suffered; and there is confidence, with 
the consent decree in place and the conditions of that consent decree, 
that no more employees will be victimized in the future.
  In another example of an EEOC sex discrimination lawsuit--and so 
there will be those that will help implement this settlement--the 
Cintas Corporation settled to pay $1.5 million. The corporation entered 
into a further agreement: to hire an outside expert to reevaluate the 
criteria used to screen, interview, and select employees and the 
interview guides used in employee hiring; to provide training to the 
individuals involved in the selection of employees, whereby such 
training would cover record retention and an explanation of what 
constitutes an unlawful employment practice under title VII; to 
continue to provide diversity, harassment, and antidiscrimination 
training annually to employees; to post a notice informing employees 
that Federal law prohibits discrimination; and to report to EEOC over 
an approximate 28-month period information and materials on training 
programs, recruiting logs, descriptions, and explanations for any 
changes.
  I would argue the point that this helps to promote the 
antidiscrimination necessary to correct the pathway that some have 
found their way in. The Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would create an 
appropriate exemption to the absolute block and prohibition that the 
underlying legislation provides.
  Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 exempts from H.R. 5063 
settlement agreements that resolves a civil action or potential civil 
action in relation to sexual harassment, violence, or discrimination in 
the workplace.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 5063 as currently drafted is flawed and misguided.
  This bill seeks to exempt only those payments to parties other than 
the government to provide restitution for actual harm ``directly and 
proximately caused by the party making the payment.''
  A few months ago we saw that the Justice Department filed a federal 
civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina and other 
parties declaring North Carolina House Bill 2's restroom restriction 
unlawfully discriminatory.
  Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated that this complaint was about 
``a great deal more than just bathrooms.''
  She explained:
  ``This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens 
and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to 
protect them--indeed, to protect all of us. And it's about the founding 
ideals that have led this country--haltingly but inexorably--in the 
direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.''
  Enforcing these rights is as important today as they were during the 
enactment of the Civil Rights Act over fifty years ago.
  H.R. 5063 would prohibit remediation of generalized harm in civil 
rights cases, restricting relief for non-parties to the litigation and 
non-identifiable victims of discrimination.
  Professor David Uhlmann observed during last month's hearing on this 
bill ``fails to adequately address the fact that generalized harm 
arises in civil cases,'' including cases involving ``harm to our 
communities . . . that cannot be addressed by restitution.''
  In these cases, Professor Uhlmann concluded, third-party payments are 
appropriate.
  Yet, the Majority witness, Daniel Lungren, specifically testified on 
behalf of the Chamber that the bill should prohibit ``the U.S. 
government from entering into a settlement agreement requiring a 
defendant to donate to an organization or individual not a party to the 
litigation.''

[[Page 11950]]

  The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 would remedy this flaw by creating an 
exception to cases where settlement funds are directed to the 
remediation of generalized harm other than restitution to identifiable 
victims.
  For instance, in the settlement of an EEOC sexual harassment case of 
female laundry workers and a consent decree resolving the case provides 
that:
  In addition to paying $582,000, Suffolk Laundry will adopt new 
procedures to prevent sexual harassment and will train its managers and 
staff on identifying and preventing sexual harassment and retaliation.
  The policies and staff training will be available in Spanish.
  EEOC will monitor Suffolk Laundry's compliance with these obligations 
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a period of four 
years.
  Because of this consent decree, these women will receive due 
compensation for the abuse they suffered and, there is confidence, with 
the consent decree in place and the conditions of that consent decree, 
that no more employees will be victimized in the future.
  In another example of an EEOC sex discrimination lawsuit where Cintas 
Corporation settled to pay $1.5 million, the corporation entered into a 
further agreement:
  To hire an outside expert to revalidate the criteria used to I 
screen, interview and select employees and the interview guides used in 
employee hiring.
  To provide training to the individuals involved in the selection of 
employees, whereby such training would cover record retention and an 
explanation of what constitutes an unlawful employment practice under 
Title VII.
  To continue to provide diversity, harassment and antidiscrimination 
training annually to employees.
  To post a notice informing employees that federal law prohibits 
discrimination, and to report to EEOC over an approximate 28-month 
period information and materials on training programs; recruiting logs; 
descriptions and explanations for any changes made to the employee 
hiring process; its expert revalidation findings; unprivileged 
materials and reports from any audits made of a facility's employee 
hiring or recruitment methods or practices, should an audit be done; 
record retention and reporting on applicant data.
  According to EEOC General Counsel, David Lopez, the injunctive relief 
obtained provides confidence and a strong foundation for eliminating 
barriers in recruiting and hiring women and will prevent the 
reoccurrence of this type of situation.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 would have a direct impact on these 
very types of cases by providing an exception to cases where funds are 
directed to the remediation of generalized harm, as highlighted in the 
above agreements that falls within the category of other than direct 
restitution to the identifiable victims.
  Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt settlements 
resolving workplace sexual harassment, violence, or discrimination; but 
nothing in the underlying bill prevents victims of workplace 
harassment, violence, or discrimination from obtaining relief.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 explicitly permits 
remedial payments to third-party victims who were directly and 
proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing. Nor does the bill 
preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases.
  Nothing in the bill debars 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 of two third parties who might be 
friendly with a given administration.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary just answered, this is a political bill. If an 
independent entity in the settlement wants to retain an entity to help 
train, to help provide information, to speak Spanish, why is that 
prohibited?
  My amendment says there should be an affirmative affirmation through 
an exemption that this is not disallowed because specifically what they 
are trying to go to is blocking the particular settlement and the 
parties from making an informed decision as to who would best implement 
the settlement; and if that required funding to do so to an entity that 
may happen to be a civil rights group, an NAACP, an Urban League, La 
Raza, then it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle want 
to make sure that those organizations' storied histories in civil 
rights does not get a chance to help improve and to eliminate sexual 
harassment, workplace harassment, workplace discrimination, sexual 
violence, none of these things.
  I can't, for the life of me, understand why the Jackson Lee amendment 
No. 4 would not be an acceptable affirmation that it is all right for 
these corporations to engage with other entities that can do the job 
better than them.
  Let's work together to eliminate discrimination in America once and 
for all, and let's work together so that we don't read any more 
headlines like the Aurora, Colorado, headline victims, where they were 
told to pay $700,000 back to the theater. I am appalled, and I think 
none of us would agree with that.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment No. 4. It is 
right for justice and equality.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The fact of the matter is that the principle here of making sure that 
when the Department of Justice goes and extracts settlement payments 
from defendants in lawsuits brought against them is spent to directly 
compensate the victims is what this legislation is all about. We want 
to see them compensated.
  We also want to make sure that if they are not harmed by this, it 
doesn't matter who they are. It could be a Republican administration 
and their favored groups may be a whole different list of organizations 
that might be sitting there at the door hoping to be able to get some 
money from the Federal trough by simply applying to a Federal 
prosecutor or a Federal bureaucrat instead of going through the process 
that the United States Constitution requires, and that is that Article 
I of the Constitution says the Congress shall appropriate funds. If the 
funds are not to go to people directly harmed, they should come to the 
General Treasury; and the Congress itself, the people's elected 
representatives in the people's House, should appropriate the funds as 
they believe is most appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. 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. Chairman, 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. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:
       (e) Special Rule for Attorney Fees in Environmental 
     Cases.--In the case of a settlement agreement which is 
     permissible under subsection (a), and which directs or 
     provides for payment for services rendered in connection with 
     a case relating to the environment, the settlement agreement 
     may not provide for payment of attorney fees in excess of 
     $125 per hour.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page 11951]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will prevent the abuse of Justice Department settlements 
to line the pockets of environmental lawyers.
  The Gosar amendment caps settlement payments for attorneys' fees 
provided in relation to environmental cases at $125 per hour. The Equal 
Access to Justice Act, EAJA, already contains a fee cap of $125 per 
hour for attorney fees. Unfortunately, EAJA also contains a loophole 
that allows specialized attorneys to violate that cap without 
explicitly defining who meets this standard. The result has been the 
rampant abuse of this loophole by environmental groups who routinely 
argue that their lawyers are specialized and can therefore violate the 
cap. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act does not contain this cap.
  As a report by the Congressional Working Group on the Endangered 
Species Act explains: ``The effect is large, deep-pocketed 
environmental groups with annual revenues well over $100 million are 
reaping taxpayer reimbursements from a law intended for the `little 
guy.'
  ``These groups--and their lawyers--are making millions of taxpayer 
dollars by suing the Federal Government, being deemed the `prevailing 
party' by Federal courts, and being awarded fees either through 
settlement with DOJ or by courts.
  ``According to the documents provided by DOJ, some attorneys 
representing nongovernmental entities have been reimbursed at rates as 
much as $500 per hour, and at least two lawyers have each received over 
$2 million in attorneys' fees from filing ESA cases.''
  Perhaps most egregious, many of these lawsuits are not even 
litigated. These attorneys are raking in these ridiculously high fees 
by filing and settling. This has massively incentivized the ``sue and 
settle'' tactics that have become all too common in these types of 
cases.
  Again, U.S. Code section 504, subsection (b)(1) already caps attorney 
fees at $125 per hour. My amendment simply closes the loophole that 
environmental groups use to violate this cap and charge inordinate 
attorney fees at taxpayer expense.
  Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, including the 
Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, introduced by 
Representative Huizenga. As Representative Huizenga accurately stated 
in April of 2015: ``The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to 
enhance wildlife preservation, not line the pockets of trial attorneys 
with taxpayer dollars. Every taxpayer dollar spent on litigation is a 
dollar that could have been spent protecting the environment.''
  This amendment is endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government, 
the American Conservative Union, Family Farm Alliance, the Motorcycle 
Industry Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the 
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association, the Specialty Vehicle 
Institute of America, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, and the Arizona Farm Bureau.
  I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this 
legislation and for recognizing that the settlement process is in 
desperate need of reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the 
ability of the prevailing party to receive reasonable attorneys' fees 
for services rendered in connection with a settlement agreement.
  Where citizens, through a private enforcement action, hold the 
government or a private party accountable, Congress has authorized 
payments for reasonable attorneys' fees.
  Bringing meritorious claims to hold corporate wrongdoing accountable 
is often time consuming and expensive. In many cases, Congress has 
already authorized reasonable attorneys' fees specifically to encourage 
these types of lawsuits to ensure a level playing field and an 
accessible justice system.
  This amendment would limit these fees to outdated rates--$125 an 
hour; that is ridiculous--and that will discourage citizens from 
bringing these important lawsuits. Accordingly, I encourage my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 is intended to bolster 
Congress' Article I institutional authority over all types of cases, 
not to carve out special rules for particular categories of cases. 
Attorneys' fee issues are not the focus of the bill and would be better 
addressed by separate legislation.
  I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his concern about the abuse 
that he has cited, but this amendment could also have significant, 
unintended adverse consequences. First and foremost, it could hinder 
the ability of small businesses challenging government overreach to 
obtain representation. This could occur, for example, in Fifth 
Amendment takings cases, many of which involve the environment.
  Indeed, fee recoveries under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 
although often abused by environmental NGOs, as was cited by the 
gentleman from Arizona, were originally intended to go to small 
businesses and other small entities to help them sue against 
overreaching government action. The problem he cites needs to be 
addressed, but not here. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to agree with the 
chairman on his analysis of the Equal Access to Justice Act. It has 
been abused. As I mentioned before, environmental groups with well over 
$100 million in annual revenues are using the law intended to protect 
the little guy to siphon money from the American taxpayers. That is why 
my amendment is so important. By closing this loophole, we can uphold 
the intent of the law and ensure its continued efficacy.
  Furthermore, line 15 of the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act contains 
a carve-out for environmental litigation. My amendment is, therefore, 
both germane and critical to preventing attorneys in these 
environmental lawsuits from using the currently existing loophole to 
charge upwards of $500 per hour for their service.
  As my colleague Representative Huizenga has perviously pointed out, 
every dollar spent on litigation is a dollar that cannot go to 
protecting or restoring the environment.
  I also want to make clear that my amendment does nothing to prohibit 
groups from engaging in litigation or to prohibit repayments for their 
legal fees. The $125 cap already exists in current law. My amendment 
simply closes the loophole that environmental groups have used to 
exceed that cap.
  Once again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their efforts on 
this important issue. I encourage the passage of the Gosar amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.

[[Page 11952]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:
       (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 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 
     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.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend Chairman 
Goodlatte for his work on the underlying bill. I want to thank him and 
the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their support and assistance 
on crafting this and the following amendment. I also want to thank the 
chairman, staff, and members of the Rules Committee for their help as 
well.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, requires the head of each Federal 
agency to provide an annual electronic report to the Congressional 
Budget Office of any settlement agreements entered into by an official 
or agency during the previous year, consistent with the limitations of 
the underlying bill, H.R. 5063.
  This annual submission to CBO is critical to ensure the transparency 
of these settlements and to provide Congress an opportunity to obtain 
the information on these from the agencies. Further, with this 
information, CBO can begin building a database of these settlements, 
which is essential for Congress to track and to monitor the size and 
number of these agreements made by the Federal Government.
  I should point out that it also includes language to ensure that no 
additional funds are appropriated for this administrative reporting 
requirement to make certain that the amendment has no budgetary impact. 
I want to also state, finally, that this amendment includes a 7-year 
sunset provision to comply with the House's CutGo provision.
  I want to once again thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It would 
require Federal agencies to submit reports electronically to the 
Congressional Budget Office on settlement agreements into which they 
enter. The amendment's electronic reporting requirement would help 
alert Congress to problem settlements, is efficient, and would 
aggregate information in one place, which would aid oversight. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this valuable amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
once again. I urge adoption of 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. Tom Price).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 114-724.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill the following:
       (e) 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is the sister or cousin 
amendment to the one just adopted by the House, and it requires the 
inspector general of each Federal agency to provide an annual report to 
the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, Appropriations, and 
the Budget concerning any settlement agreements that may violate 
section 2(a) of H.R. 5063.
  The previous amendment identified all those settlements made 
consistent with H.R. 5063, and this is a report that would be required 
that would identify those settlements outside the agreements under H.R. 
5063.
  This information is vital to help ensure that the Federal agencies 
are not usurping Congress' power of the purse by continuing past 
practices and to confirm Federal agencies are fulfilling the 
requirements of the underlying bill. It also includes, once again, 
language to ensure that no additional funds are appropriated for the 
administrative reporting requirement and makes sure that it is budget-
neutral.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, even though 
I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It is another good amendment 
by the chairman of the Budget Committee, who has not only a great 
appreciation for the issues involved here, but has been very 
constructive and helpful in supporting this underlying legislation.
  This amendment would require agency inspectors general to report to 
Congress annually any settlement agreements that violate the provisions 
of this bill. This audit requirement would aid enforcement, both by 
deterring agency noncompliance and by ensuring noncompliance is 
reported back to Congress, so it can be addressed.
  Accordingly, I thank Chairman Price for his thoughtful amendment and 
for working with me on it. The amendment improves the bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank the 
Chairman for his support and for his assistance in this, and I urge 
adoption of 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. Tom Price).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will

[[Page 11953]]

now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-724 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 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 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 178, 
noes 234, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                               AYES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     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)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Loudermilk
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Rokita
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema
     Stivers
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1558

  Messrs. RATCLIFFE, WOODALL, FITZPATRICK, and ASHFORD changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                amendment No. 2 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 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 175, 
noes 236, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               AYES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal

[[Page 11954]]


     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bishop (MI)
     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Clawson (FL)
     Cole
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Guthrie
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, David
     Sinema
     Wittman

                              {time}  1603

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 484, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 484, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               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 178, 
noes 235, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               AYES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus

[[Page 11955]]


     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boustany
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Hurt (VA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema

                              {time}  1608

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote 
No. 485 On Agreeing to the Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment No. 4 to H.R. 
5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall votes 481, 482, 483, 484, and 
485, I was unable to vote as I was detained in my congressional 
district to attend the funeral of a dear friend. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 481, and 482. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 483, 484, and 485.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar) 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 155, 
noes 262, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               AYES--155

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     DeSantis
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--262

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema

                              {time}  1612

  Mr. ROTHFUS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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. 5063) 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 843, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page 11956]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. MENG. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Meng moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5063 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 3, line 11, insert after ``settlement agreement'' the 
     following: ``(except as provided in subsection (e))''.
       Add at the end of the bill the following:
       (e) Exception for a Settlement Agreement That Saves Lives 
     and Reduces Healthcare Costs.--The provisions of this Act do 
     not apply in the case of a settlement agreement that reduces 
     the cost of life-saving medical devices through the 
     enforcement of the antitrust laws.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which 
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the 
bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  The purpose of my motion is simple. It says that the restrictions in 
the underlying bill do not apply to settlement agreements that 
ultimately result in lower prices for lifesaving medical devices.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are hurting across this country. Far too 
often, there have been companies that have sought to profit off of the 
most vulnerable among us through monopoly-like action and power.
  When that happens, Mr. Speaker, particularly when it comes to medical 
devices, it is the Federal Government's role to ensure that consumers 
are protected, to ensure that all Americans have access to devices they 
need, particularly when it is a matter of life and death.
  In my opinion, we have to look no further than the actions of the 
maker of EpiPens, the device every parent of a child with severe 
allergies is aware of. When a child goes into shock, this is the device 
that will save his or her life.
  Unfortunately, EpiPen's maker, Mylan, has chosen to systematically 
inflate its profits over the past several years without reinvesting 
those profits for further business activities such as research and 
development. Instead, we have seen CEO pay raised astronomically, and 
quarterly profits skyrocket, all off the backs of vulnerable Americans.
  This is wrong. It is so wrong that we have taken notice of these 
actions, and Congress is investigating whether or not violations of 
antitrust law have occurred with respect to Mylan. If we find that it 
has, and DOJ or another government agency agrees, let's not hamstring 
the settlement that may ultimately be reached with Mylan.
  Clearly, we are not the jurors in this case, and we are not 
structuring the terms of any eventual, possible deal. But let's not 
preclude the agencies seeking to protect us from reaching a deal that 
may solve problems for Americans in need, a deal that may actually 
reduce the cost of lifesaving medical devices.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this motion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Nothing in this bill interferes with antitrust settlement. Nothing. 
The bill goes to Congress' constitutional power. That is why every 
Member of Congress should oppose this motion to recommit.
  I say this because it targets legislation designed exclusively to 
strengthen Congress. Serious people on both sides of the aisle 
understand the importance of Congress' spending power.
  A major theme of the Speaker's A Better Way Initiative is that the 
spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in 
executive overreach. Liberal legal scholar Abner Mikva agrees:

       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.

  This motion stems from a misunderstanding of the governing principle 
of this bill, which is simply this: DOJ's authority to settle cases 
requires the ability to obtain redress for actual victims--actual 
victims. However, once direct victims have been compensated, deciding 
what to do with additional funds extracted from defendants becomes a 
policy question properly decided by elected representatives in 
Congress, not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
  The Framers assigned this job to Congress. It is in everyone's 
interest to preserve the careful balance of our Framers' wisely struck 
constitutional issues. If you believe in checks and balances, oppose 
the motion and support this bill. If you believe that effective 
congressional oversight of the executive branch is important, oppose 
this motion and support this bill. If you believe that Congress' 
ability to rein in executive overreach will be important in future 
administrations, oppose this motion and support this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to defend Congress' institutional interest by 
opposing this motion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 234, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 487]

                               AYES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)

[[Page 11957]]


     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
       
       
       

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Franks (AZ)
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Rokita
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema
       
       

                              {time}  1627

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 487, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  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. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 174, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 488]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Beyer
     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Johnson, Sam
     LaMalfa
     Lieu, Ted
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema

[[Page 11958]]



                              {time}  1635

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________