Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 469, the Congressional Article I Powers Strengthening Act; and H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, two Judiciary bills that are deficient in both process and in substance.

First, let me address the Congressional Article I Powers and Strengthening Act, a bill that my Republican friends purport will provide commonsense solutions to curbing regulatory abuse, but will, in fact, undermine the ability of Federal regulators to protect the health and safety of Americans, threaten the privacy of victims of government misconduct, and intrude on the Department of Justice's enforcement discretion, raising serious separation of powers concerns.

Mr. Speaker, just as appalling as the substance of this bill is the process by which we are considering it and many other bills deriving from the Judiciary Committee lately.

This bill is actually three Judiciary Committee bills wrapped in one Rules Committee print. However, one of the bills, H.R. 4070, was introduced last week without a hearing, without a markup, without notice to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and without consultation with constitutional

lawyers and experts and interested citizens.

This process is truly a slap in the face of regular order. A bill that has zero input from members on the Judiciary Committee or been the subject of any thoughtful discussion is suddenly on the House floor for a vote.

Interestingly, when I listened to my friend from Georgia, who I know is particularly serious about his approaches to legislation, I sat here and then I looked into the gallery, and there were 20 people who were seated there. I didn't see on the faces of those that I could see any understanding of one thing that he said, not because of the speed of his manner of speech, but because of the complexity of issues that give rise to us.

Among the things he said was transparency, accountability, and wanting to make sure that we, this body, exercise our prerogative with reference to for the people, by the people, and of the people.

I would imagine that people listening to this debate would want to believe that half of this body, half of the people who are represented in this country had input to this legislation. Let me tell you, People, they had none, zero. No Democrat had any input to this measure that I just discussed.

How can we expect Members of this body, let alone the American people, to have any idea as to what we are voting on with this measure and what its impact will be when it seems the path it took to getting a vote is based solely on the whim of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

Unfortunately, there is total disregard for even a semblance of regular order. That term is utilized a lot here, and, again, the American people, many of them, don't have a clue what we are talking about.

What we are talking about, basically, is matters that go to committees have hearings, have both sides have input, have witnesses who are experts or have responsibilities in that arena, and then the matter comes to the Rules Committee and is granted a bill of substance to come here to the floor, and that process is generally known by those of us with Congress-speak as regular order.

It is nothing new for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, which has been the worst offender of regular order, when it comes to pushing for a closed process.

During the 115th Congress, bills coming to the floor from the Judiciary Committee were granted the most closed rules of any of the committees in this august body, eight closed rules. There is no committee chair in this Congress who has requested the Republican- controlled Rules Committee grant more closed rules than the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Indeed, this departure from a process that we refer to as regular order, from a process that allows input from outside experts and other witnesses, a process that allows both parties, if there is a hearing, to ask questions of those witnesses, this departure is astounding, and that is within the context of this Congress, which, in just the first 10 months, will soon become the most closed Congress in history.

I remember when I ran for office in 1992, I appeared a lot on radio stations. In many of those appearances, the opposition, not just my opponent, but the major party, had begun a drumbeat of the Democrats are not following regular order, they are having closed rules.

Little did I know in 1992, nor did I aspire when I came here, to be on the Rules Committee to have a better understanding, but I kept listening to this closed rule argument, and many persons lost their elections because of that.

If there is ever a time for us to address it, it would be now. We have that prerogative to be able to open up this process so that all Members can be involved.

When this Congress began, the distinguished Speaker of this body promised an open and transparent House. He called for a return to regular order. After what we have seen over the last 10 months, I shudder to think what the distinguished Speaker considers a closed process.

I might add, the next tier under closed is structured rules, which we are here today on, which, yet again, limits the number of activities by others, amendments, and other processes that would be appropriate.

Yesterday, when my colleague and I were in the Rules Committee, we had before us matters that were germane to this issue that were denied, that could have, under an open process, been made in order so that we could discuss it here today.

This Republican process, shutting out the voice and input of representatives of nearly half the country, is not just an affront to normal House procedure, which it is, it is downright undemocratic and emblematic of the Republican majority's true inability to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I turn to the second bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 732, a bill as misguided and substantively unnecessary as the first bill was lacking in process. In fact, in the last Congress, a law professor testifying on an identical bill described it as a solution in search of a problem.

That was as true in the last Congress as it is in this one, which is too bad, because we do not lack in actual problems in desperate need of sensible solutions.

H.R. 732 would prevent Federal agencies from requiring third-party payments, such as those to charities, in settlement agreements with entities accused of wrongdoing.

Now, there in the report pointed out by the chairman of the Rules Committee yesterday shows the number of banks and mortgage companies and others that have violated the law and entered into settlements with the government for billions of dollars. Such payments, in excess of what the victims have agreed to, and the settlements that have been entered into and approved by judges, each one of these settlements, my friend said these payments may have gone to politically motivated--may be politically motivated organizations, and he cites to La Raza, which did receive money, but so did other charitable organizations: the New Christian Joy Full Gospel Baptist Church, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Catholic Charities Financial and Housing Counseling.

We sought yesterday while we were in the committee--I sought and asked staff to provide for me some of the organizations that my friends say may be politically motivated, or activists, as he referred to them, and it is 49 pages of organizations that were available to receive these funds, and, yes, some of them are liberal and also some of them are conservative organizations as we know them.

Such payments to charities are a common enforcement tool in settlements and have long been used to help provide communities with relief from systemic harm caused by illegal behavior.

Now, for example, following the 2008 financial crisis, in some of the settlement agreements with Wall Street banks, President Obama's Department of Justice required banks to donate money to charities committed to neighborhood stabilization and foreclosure prevention efforts, and this made perfect sense.

In the wake of the crisis, as many as 10 million families lost their homes to foreclosure. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Federal courts have long upheld this practice in settlement agreements. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my Republican colleagues considered these provisions to be an attempt by President Obama's administration to use, as they say, ``a slush fund,'' to enrich, ``liberal friends,'' despite the fact that certified charities eligible to receive these payments encompass liberal and conservative groups alike.

They even launched an investigation which yielded no credible evidence to substantiate their claims. Yet, despite the GAO, the Federal courts, and a Republican-led investigation showing no wrongdoing, we are considering this bill today to ban this longstanding legal practice aimed at assisting communities in the wake of suffering systemic abuse--abuse that I will underline again, and even say slowly, hurt Democrats and Republicans.

I suppose the only question left to ask my Republican friends is, 10 months into the new administration, nearly a year after the last election, why are they continuing to conduct

pointless and partisan oversight of the Obama administration?

Let me see if I can make this clear. President Obama is no longer the President of the United States, nor is Bill Clinton or George Bush. The President of the United States now is a new individual who we have to deal with, and it would be helpful if we were to address some of the matters ongoing that this particular administration is deserving of oversight.

I know that President Obama was a useful foil for many in the Republican Party when it came to messaging and campaigning, but he is not the President anymore. He won his two elections. That is the past. This bill represents nothing but the Republican majority grasping at straws and trying their best to turn their oversight attention away from doing their duty and providing oversight of the Trump administration.

Today, two new inquiries, I don't even have the time or wouldn't take the time to go into the inquiries that ain't going nowhere, have been announced, certainly as a distraction to many of the negatives that come out by virtue of this particular Congress not having done anything. It is the do-nothing Congress on steroids.

If there was ever an administration that needed rigorous oversight, it is the current one. In just 10 months, we have had reports of gratuitous use of private jets, the use of private email servers by senior staff, and I might add that one of those things identified today is they are going to go after Hillary or have oversight hearings on Hillary Clinton's emails. Enough already. Hillary Clinton lost her election, and lost with the emails as well, but we have current staff who are using private email servers. Given your history, should that not at least pique your oversight interest?

Spending tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to use Mar-a-Lago for official meetings, waste, cronyism, the list goes on and on and on. How about oversight of a little, old company in Montana that doesn't have any successful history getting a $200 million no-bid contract in Puerto Rico to reestablish those facilities there? Out of Montana, little, old company, $200 million, no-bid. You got it. You go forward. You talk about waste and cronyism. And what do we get from the Republicans? Deafening silence.

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are considering the rule for a bill today entitled Article I Powers Strengthening Act when this Republican Congress has shown they can't even undertake the basic Article I duty of providing oversight of the executive. They don't need to strengthen Article I, they need to just start doing their jobs in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to have my friend understand that I am getting close to closing. I don't think I have any speakers, but I do have words that I wish to put forward right now.

It is shameful that we would be in a position where the DACA program is being threatened without a single thought to the consequences this decision would have on the 800,000 young lives this program protects.

While this may appear to be off message with regard to the measures that are before us, the minority is given an opportunity to present what is called a previous question, and it can be on matters germane to the thoughts of the minority and can be on any subject that they choose. In this instance, we choose to, with the previous question, address DACA.

Do the American people even want DACA to end? The answer is clearly no. According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll, support for allowing these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69 percent of Republicans think they should stay. Congress must act to protect our DREAMers.

Mr. Speaker, here is a chance to rectify the President's decision and restore the American people's faith in this institution.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I mentioned that there were 49 pages--I didn't realize how extensive it really was--of organizations that were eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's prerogative. It includes organizations that did, in fact, receive these funds.

They come from a wide array of organizations in our respective communities that, in my judgment, have on-the-ground ability to be efficient and to make sure that the expenditure of those funds benefit those who have suffered from systemic inequities by large organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a portion of these organizations that were eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's prerogative.

Agency Name

Money Management International, Anchorage, AK.;

Neighborworks Anchorage Formerly Anchorage Neighborhood

Housing Services; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--

Covington County; Birmingham Urban League, Inc.; Gateway

Financial Freedom/CCCS of Central Alabama; Jefferson County

Committee for Economic Opportunity; Jefferson County Housing

Authority; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of

America) Birmingham. AL; Neighborhood Housing Services of

Birmingham, Inc.; United Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; United

Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Partnership of

North Alabama--Cullman Branch; Community Action Partnership

of North Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Agency of Northwest

Alabama, Inc.; Hale Empowerment and Revitalization

Organization (HERO); Organized Community Action Programs

Inc.--Butler County; Organized Community Action Programs

Inc.--Lowndes County; CCCS of Tennessee River Valley;

Community Action Partnership, Huntsville/Madison & Limestone

Counties. Inc.; Family Services Center, Inc.

CCCS of Mobile--Jackson; Telamon Corporation; CCCS of

Mobile; Center for Fair Housing; Mobile Housing Board; CCCS

of Alabama--Montgomery; Legal Services Alabama Inc; CCCS of

Mobile--Montrose AL; Community Action Partnership of North

Alabama--Moulton Branch; Organized Community Action Programs

Inc.--Dale County; Housing Authority of the City of Prichard;

Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Franklin

County; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--Crenshaw

County; Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Colbert

County; Organized Community Action Program, Inc.; Community

Service Programs of West Alabama, Inc.; Organized Community

Action Programs Inc.--Bullock County; Credit Counseling of

Arkansas--Bentonville; Mississippi County, Arkansas Economic

Opportunity Commission, Inc.; Hope Enterprise Corporation.

Family Service Agency--CCCS; Arkansas River Valley Area

Council, Inc.; Money Management International El Dorado;

Credit Counseling of Arkansas; Crawford Sebastian Community

Development Council; Credit Counseling of Arkansas Fort

Smith; Northwest Regional Housing Authority; Southern Bancorp

Community Partners; Jonesboro Urban Renewal and Housing

Authority Housing and Community Development Organization

(JURHA HCDO; Arkansas Development Finance Authority; Better

Community Development, Inc.; Community Resources Technicians,

Inc.; Family Service Agency--CCCS; In Affordable Housing,

Incorporated; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of

America) Little Rock, AR; Southern Bancorp Community

Partners; Universal Housing Development Corporation; Credit

Counseling of Arkansas--Springdale; Southeastern Arizona

Governments Organization; Community Action Human Resources

Agency.

Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona, Inc.; Money

Management International, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ; Northern

Arizona Council of Governments; Administration of Resources

and Choices; Money Management International, Inc. Glendale,

AZ; Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG)--Kingman

Branch Office; Housing Counseling and Education Services;

Money Management International, Inc. Mesa, AZ; Springboard--

Mesa; Chicanos Por La Causa--Nogales; Nogales Community

Development Corporation; Chicanos Por La Causa, Phoenix; City

of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department; Community

Housing Resources of Arizona; Desert Mission Neighborhood

Renewal; Greater Phoenix Urban League; Labor's Community

Service Agency; Money Management International Phoenix Phone

Center; Money Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ

Central.

NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America)

Phoenix, AZ; Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix; NID-

HCA Phoenix Randolph; Take Charge America; Money Management

International, Inc. Prescott, AZ; Campesinos Sin Fronteras;

Comite De Bien Estar, Inc.; Credit Advisors Foundation; Money

Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ--North; Housing

America Corporation; Greenpath Debt Solutions; Money

Management International, Inc. Tempe, AZ; Newtown Community

Development Corporation; Administration of Resources and

Choices; Catholic Community Services of So. Arizona, Inc. DBA

Pio Decimo Center; Chicanos Por La Causa-Tucson; Family

Housing Resources; Money Management International, Inc.

Tucson, AZ--SE; Money Management, Inc. Tuscon, AZ--NW; Old

Pueblo Housing Development, Inc.

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc.; Southwest Fair Housing

Counsel; The Primavera Foundation, Inc.; Tucson Urban League;

Northern Arizona Council of Governments; Western Arizona

Council of Governments (WACOG); Western Arizona Council of

Governments NCOA HECM; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of

Orange County; CCCS of the North Coast; CCCS of Kern and

Tulare Counties; Community Housing Council of Kern Co.;

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County; Korean

Resource Center; Surepath Financial Solutions; Consumer

Credit Counselors of Kern and Tulare Counties; Money

Management International Chula Vista; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Coachella; Clearpoint Credit Counseling

Solutions--Commerce Branch; Catholic Charities of the East

Bay; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO).

Money Management International Concord; National Asian

American Coalition (Formerly Known as Mabuhay Alliance);

California Rural Legal Assistance--Delano; Able Works;

Springboard--El Cajon; California Rural Legal Assistance--El

Centro; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--El Centro

Branch (Imperial County); Community Housing Works; Pacific

Community Services Fairfield; Consumer Credit Counseling

Service of Orange County; Money Management International

Fremont; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Fresno; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions

Inc.--Fresno Branch; Community Housing Council of Fresno;

Housing Authority of the City of Fresno; California Rural

Legal Assistance--Gilroy; Project Sentinel; Clearpoint Credit

Counseling Solutions--Glendale Branch; Clearpoint Credit

Counseling Solutions--Granada Hills Branch.

NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) Los

Angeles, CA; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO);

Springboard--Hemet; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--

Indio Branch (Riverside County); Amador Tuolumne Community

Action Agency; Springboard--Ladera; Clearpoint Credit

Counseling Solutions--Lakewood Branch; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Lamont; Pure Hearts R Us Housing Corporation;

Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO); Tri-Valley

Housing Opportunity Center; Home Preservation and Prevention

(HPP Cares); Operation Hope Inc.--Long Beach Branch;

Springboard--Long Beach; East La Community Corporation

(ELACC); Korean Churches for Community Development; Korean

Resource Center; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services,

Inc; New Economics for Women; NID-HCA Reeves;

Operation Hope, Inc; Operation Hope, Inc.--La Branch;

Shalom Center for T.R.E.E. of Life; Thai Community

Development Corp.; Watts Century Latino Org.; West Angeles

Community Development Corp.; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Madera; California Rural Legal Assistance--

Marysville Office; Operation Hope, Inc.--Maywood Branch;

National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known As Mabuhay

Alliance); California Rural Legal Assistance--Modesto;

Community Housing and Shelter Services; Habitat for

Humanity, Stanislaus County; Project Sentinel; Montebello

Housing Development Corp.; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Monterey; Fair Housing Council of Riverside

County, Inc.; Project Sentinel; Eden Council for Hope and

Opportunity (ECHO); Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon

Valley.

Money Management International Oakland; NACA (Neighborhood

Assistance Corporation of America) Oakland, CA; National

Association of Real Estate Brokers--Investment Division, Inc;

NID-HCA Oakland Main Branch; Operation Hope, Inc.--Oakland

Branch; The Spanish Speaking Unity Council of Alameda County,

Inc. (The Unity Council); Faith Based Community Development

Corporation; Money Management International Oceanside; Inland

Fair Housing and Mediation Board; Neighborhood Partnership

Housing Services, Inc.; Neighborhood Housing Services of

Orange County; California Rural Legal Assistance--Oxnard;

Ventura County Community Development Corporaton; Fair Housing

Council of Riverside County, Inc.; Eden Council for Hope and

Opportuntiy (ECHO); California Rural Legal Assistance--Paso

Robles; Pacific Community Services, Inc.; Operation Hope,

Inc.--Poway Branch; Hometown Community Development Corp, Dba

Homestrong USA; Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Inland

Empire Branch.

Community Housing Development Corporation of North

Richmond; Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.;

Community Connect; Fair Housing Council of Riverside County,

Inc.; Springboard--Shine Center (Latham); Springboard Non

Profit Consumer Credit Management Inc.--HPF Affiliate;

Springboard Non--Profit Consumer Credit Management, Inc.;

Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Sacramento Branch;

Sacramento Home Loan Counseling Center; Sacramento

Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; California Rural Legal

Assistance--Salinas; Housing Resource Center of Monterey

County; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--San

Bernardino Branch; Neighborhood Housing Services of The

Inland Empire, Inc.; NID-HCA Inland Empire J. Jackson;

Bayside Community Center; Clearpoint Credit Counseling

Solutions--San Diego Branch; Community Housing Works; Housing

Opportunities Collaborative; Housing Opportunities

Collaborative--Branch for San Diego/Imperial Counties; Money

Management International San Diego.

National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known as

Mabuhay Alliance); Navicore Solutions--San Diego, CA;

Neighborhood House Association; San Diego Urban League; Union

of Pan Asian Communities; Asian Incorporated; CCCS of San

Francisco; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San

Francisco--HPF Affiliate; Mission Economic Development

Association (MEDA); Project Sentinel; San Francisco Housing

Development Corporation; Neighborhood Housing Services

Silicon Valley; Project Sentinel; Santa Clara County Asian

Law Alliance; Surepath Financial Solutions--San Jose; NID-HCA

San Leandro--Chambers; California Rural Legal Assistance--San

Luis Obispo; Peoples' Self Help Housing; Fair Housing of

Marin; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Santa Ana

Branch.

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County;

Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Orange County Branch;

Legal Aid Society of Orange County; Orange County Fair

Housing Council, Inc.; California Rural Legal Assistance--

Santa Barbara; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal

Assistance; California Rural Legal Assistance--Santa Maria;

Wise & Healthy Aging; California Rural Legal Assistance;

Catholic Charities, Diocese of Santa Rosa; CCCS of San

Francisco; Centro Familia Esperanza; Operation Hope Inc.--

South Gate Branch; California Rural Legal Assistance--

Stockton; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Stockton

Branch; NID-HCA A. Jones; Visionary Home Builders of

California; Project Sentinel; Northern Circle Indian Housing

Authority, United Native Housing Development Corp.

City of Vacaville Department of Housing Services; Cabrillo

Economic Development Corporation; Inland Fair Housing and

Mediation Board--Victorville Branch (San Bernardino County);

CCCS of Kern and Tulare Counties; Community Services and

Employment Training, Inc. (CSET); Self Help Enterprises;

California Rural Legal Assistance--Oceanside; Surepath

Financial Solutions--Watsonville; Rural Community Assistance

Corporation; Community Resource and Housing Development

Corporation--Alamosa; City of Aurora Community Development

Division; Boulder County Housing Authority; Greenpath, Inc.;

Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments; CCCS of Greater

Dallas--Colorado Springs; Adams County Housing Authority;

Colorado Housing and Finance Authority; Colorado Housing

Assistance Corporation; Del Norte Neighborhood Development

Corporation (NDC); Denver Housing Authority.

Greenpath, Inc.; Money Management International Denver,

Aurora Branch; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of

America) Denver, CO; NEWSED CDC; Northeast Denver Housing

Center; Southwest Improvement Council; Housing Solutions for

the Southwest; Regional Housing Alliance La Plata Homes Fund;

Brothers Redevelopment, Inc.; Greenpath Debt Solutions;

Neighbor to Neighbor; Northeast Colorado Housing, Inc.; Tri-

County Housing & Community Development Corporation; Neighbor

to Neighbor; Grand Junction Housing Authority; Greenpath Debt

Solutions; Money Management International Highlands Ranch;

Douglas County Housing Partnership; Boulder County Housing

Authority; Neighbor to Neighbor.

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pueblo, CO;

Neighborworks of Pueblo; Summit County Family Resource

Center; San Miguel Regional Housing Authority; Community

Resources and Housing Development Corporation; Money

Management International Westminster; Bridgeport Neighborhood

Trust; Housing Development Fund, Inc.--Bridgeport Branch;

Housing Development Fund--Danbury Branch; Financial

Counselors of America Connecticut Branch; Money Management

International East Hartford; Community Renewal Team, Inc.;

Hartford Areas Rally Together; Housing Education Resource

Center; Mutual Housing Association of Greater Hartford, Inc.;

NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America)

Hartford, CT; Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc.; Money

Management International Milford; Neighborhood Housing

Services of New Britain, Inc.; Greater New Haven Community

Loan Fund.

Mutual Housing of South Central CT, Inc.//Neighborworks New

Horizons; Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven;

Catholic Charities, Norwich, CT; Connecticut Housing Finance

Authority; Housing Development Fund, Inc.; Urban League of

Southern Connecticut; Neighborhood Housing Services of

Waterbury, Inc.; National Council on Aging (NCOA); Asian

American Homeownership Counseling; Carecen--Central American

Resource Center; Greater Washington Urban League; Homefree--

USA Washington DC Branch; Housing Counseling Services,

Incorporated; Latino Economic Development Corporation;

Lydia's House; Manna, Inc. Marshall Heights Community

Development Organization; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance

Corporation of America) Washington, DC; National Capacd;

National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc.; National

Council of La Raza; National Foundation for Credit

Counseling, Inc.; Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. DBA

Neighborworks America; NID-HCA Williams; Operation Hope,

Inc.--DC Branch; United Planning Organization; United

Planning Organization--Anacostia Center; United Planning

Organization--Petey Greene Community Svc. Center; United

Planning Organization Shaw Community Svc. Center; University

Legal Services; University Legal Services; CCCS of Maryland

and Delaware; Delaware State Housing Authority; First State

Community Action Agency, Inc.; National Council on

Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL

Research, Inc.); First State Community Action Agency, Inc;

National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research

Fund, Inc. (NCALL, Research, Inc.); Hockessin Community

Center; First State Community Action Agency, Inc.

National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research

Fund, Inc. (NCALL Research, Inc.); YWCA Delaware; Telamon

Corporation; CCCS of Delaware Valley, DBA Clarifi; CCCS of

Delaware Valley, Inc. DBA Clarifi; CCCS of Maryland and

Delaware; Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council;

Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc.; Interfaith

Community Housing of Delaware; Neighborhood House,

Incorporated; West End Neighborhood House; Homes in

Partnership, Inc.; We Help Community Development Corporation;

Florida Cooperative Extension--Holmes County Cooperative

Extension Service (Terminated); Boynton Beach Faith Based

CDC; Catholic Charities Diocese of Venice, Inc.; Manatee

Community Action Agency, Inc. F/K/A Manatee Opportunity

Council, Incorporated; Florida Cooperative Extension Levy

County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida Cooperative

Extension--Hernando County Cooperative Extension Service;

All-American Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.

Cape Coral Housing Development Corporation; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Washington County Cooperative

Extension Service (Terminated); Bright Community Trust, Inc.;

Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; Consumer

Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA National Foundation for

Debt Management; Consumer Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA

National Foundation for Debt Management; Housing Services of

Central Florida; Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation;

Homes in Partnership, Incorporated; Credit Card Mgmt Svcs,

Inc. D/B/A Debthelper.Com; Florida Cooperative Extension--

Brevard County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Brevard County Cooperative Extension

Service (Duplicate); CCCS of West FL; Florida Cooperative

Extension Dixie County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Pasco County Cooperative Extension

Service (Terminated); Adopt A Hurricane Family, Inc. DBA

Crisis Housing Solutions; Apprisen--CCCS--Davie; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Broward County Cooperative Extension;

Central Florida Community Development Corporation; Community

Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.

Mid-Florida Housing Partnership, Inc.; Florida Cooperative

Extension--Walton County Cooperative Extension Service;

Florida Cooperative Extension--Volusia County Cooperative

Extension Service; H.E.L.P. Community Development Corp.;

Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc; Centro Campesino,

Farmworkers Center, Inc.; New Visions Community Development

Corporation; Urban League of Broward County Main Office;

Urban League of Broward County (Branch Office); Affordable

Homeownership Foundation Inc; Home Ownership Resource Center

of Lee County; Housing Authority of the City of Ft.

Myers; Lee County Housing Development Corporation; CCCS of

West FL; City of Gainesville Housing Division; Florida

Cooperative Extension; Florida Cooperative Extension--

Alachua County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Alachua County Cooperative

Extension Service (Duplicate); Neighborhood Housing &

Development Corporation; CCCS of the Midwest.

Community Housing Partners Corporation; Community Legal

Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.--Inverness Office; Black

Bottom/Springfield Human Development Corporation, DBA St.

Joseph Homeownership; Community Home Ownership Center, Inc.

F/K/A Jacksonville FL Chapter Assoc. of Housing Counselors &

Agencies CDC; Family Foundations of Northeast Florida, Inc.;

Florida Cooperative Extension--Duval County Cooperative

Extension Service; Greenpath, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of

Jacksonville, Inc.; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.;

Jacksonville Urban League; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance

Corporation of America) Jacksonville, FL; Operation New Hope

CDC; Wealth Watcher, Inc; Community Legal Services of Mid-

Florida, Inc.--Kissimmee Office; Florida Cooperative

Extension--Osceola County Cooperative Extension Service; The

Agriculture and Labor Program, Inc.; Florida Cooperative

Extension--Columbia County Extension Service; Springboard--

Lake Mary; Catholic Charities of Central Florida; Keystone

Challenge Fund, Inc.

Florida Cooperative Extension--Pinellas County Cooperative

Extension Service; Broward County Housing Authority; Florida

Cooperative Extension--Citrus County Cooperative Extension

Service; Debt Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt

Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt Management Credit

Counseling Corp.; Florida Cooperative Extension--Suwannee

County Cooperative Extension Service; Greenpath Debt

Solutions; Florida Cooperative Extension--Baker County

Cooperative Extension Service (Duplicate); Florida

Cooperative Extension--Baker County Cooperative Extension

Service (Terminated); Florida Cooperative Extension--Madison

County Cooperative Extension Service (Terminated); Community

Housing Initiative, Inc; Cuban American National Council,

Inc.--Miami; Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc.;

Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida; Real Estate,

Education and Community Housing, Inc.; SER Jobs for Progress;

Miami Beach Community Development Corp; NID-HCA Florida

Felton; Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that my friend from Georgia does have a companion bill in the other body. I believe it is S. 333. I would--like I will when the Georgia-Florida game comes up--make a wager with my friend that that bill ain't going nowhere. But, anyway, we are here talking about it, so my wager with the gentleman will be under appropriate measures. I wish he and I could go to Jacksonville together at what they say is the greatest cocktail party in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that at least one of the bills wrapped up in today's, in my view, nonsense, ought to continue to be described as a solution in search of a problem. I am not fully convinced that the observation is not an apt one for the whole lot of bills before us today. As I just mentioned, this is particularly disturbing as this country has real problems which need real solutions.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has expired, and there seems to be little to no will on the other side of the aisle to right this wrong at this time. Sure, we hear possibilities of a solution. When I came back this week, I thought that we would certainly address it. September 30 was when it expired. Yet we and, more importantly, millions of children and organizations wait for an answer.

We know that we are fast approaching a government shutdown, but instead we come to the floor week after week forced to debate ridiculous bills that, in substance, are well-thought-out by the persons presenting them, but, in reality, are not going to become law and are nothing more than talking points of the day, when these things that we should be addressing are going unmet.

We need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, yet the answer to this issue evades my friends across the aisle. We need to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, yet we wait.

We need to address the crippling epidemic that is gun violence in this country. We need to remember that not even a month ago, this man out in Las Vegas took aim from the 32nd floor of a hotel and rained terror down upon thousands of innocent people enjoying a music festival. The weapons of war he used that night are just as readily available today as the day he bought them.

Finally, I understand people may want to forget the following, but we cannot, and I will not let you forget that there are millions of people across the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and there are thousands in Florida and in Texas who are still awaiting visits from

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I would only offer to say that there is not one Judiciary Committee Democrat on this so-called bipartisan bill. That is where you first start the bipartisanship: you work with members who may, in fact, believe that some of the issues that have been raised by my

good friend from California may have merit.

Maybe this bill could have been drafted in a way that would have responded to some of the failures, if there are some, such as evidenced by our good friend from New Jersey, who recalled a lot of failures not by Democrats but by Republicans. But when you start off with a bill talking about slush funds, then you negate the good work of so many organizations that have benefited to do the very good that the consent decree was intended to do.

Today, I stood with the Latinas Against Domestic Violence. They came here to stand against the violence against women that goes on and on and on. Some of them may be in the gallery.

But what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is: Why would we not want to give that organization funds if they were in line to get dollars to help prevent or intervene in the vileness of domestic violence?

So the idea that our friends on the other side are missing is the value some of these entities have been given.

The only word that I have heard over and over again, as I have heard from the administration, I have heard from the Attorney General, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is one word. In fact, I think the English language has been limited to one word on the floor of the House: Obama. I like to call him President Barack Obama. That is the respect I give him.

Every legislative initiative has come forward on the shoulders of a man who finishes 8 years, might I say, with a great deal of respect.

So here is what the bill the people are opposed to will do:

This bill would not give dollars to those victims who are harmed and could engage in workplace monitoring, as well as other payments to remedy generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace.

They wouldn't give it to an environmental remedy project, such as needed cleanup efforts following the hazardous toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected areas, preventing families and children from enjoying recreation on State lands designed for public use.

They wouldn't give it to federally certified housing counseling intermediaries by preventing housing counseling, relief to communities that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law.

I even hate to use the term ``slush.'' They are dollars out of a consent decree that are managed and monitored by career professionals to those in need.

So I am opposed to the underlying bill, and I will offer an amendment.

I will also be on this floor offering letters opposing, again, not only this dastardly named legislation--who would want to see this in the Congressional Record: slush fund--undermining, as I said, the professionalism of our career employees in the DOJ and undermining American citizens and nonprofits who are working every day to make the life of America and America's children better.

This is a bad bill. Vote it down. It is not bipartisan. No Judiciary Committee Democrat saw fit for it to be legitimate.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 732, the ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017.''

The proposed legislation, as currently drafted, is intended to preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other than restitution to identifiable victims.

Specifically, this legislation seeks to block federal law from including payments that provide relief in negotiated settlements to victims, such as in cases of predatory lending, employment discrimination and pollution through environmental hazardous.

For the average American, this harmful bill translates as thwarting settlement donations to legitimately harmed victims for:

1. Workplace monitoring, as well as, other payments to remedy generalized harm, including remedies designed to prevent the recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace;

2. Environmental remedy projects, such as needed clean-up efforts following the hazardous, toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected areas, preventing families and children from enjoying recreation time on state lands designed for public use; or

3. Federally-certified housing counseling intermediaries by preventing housing counseling relief to communities that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law.

This legislation fails to recognize the critical role and positive benefits that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses, like those that led to the housing and financial crisis, never happen again.

The Republican narrative suggests that this bill attempts to make technical changes to the way that courts operate; but in reality, for the everyday hard working American, this legislation along with its companion bills (H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,'' and H.R. 725, the ``Innocent Party Protection Act,'') is merely a concerted effort to chip away at Americans' ability to seek justice and, therefore, must be opposed.

This legislation is intended to cut off proceeds from government settlements to ``third-party'' entities, which would stop a critical source of funding for the nonprofit sector--including public interest community organizations, foundations or trusts and other similar groups.

Oftentimes, allowing these monies to be available to third-parties is the best way to assure harmed persons will be made whole.

By barring government settlements from directing payments to non- profit organizations, this legislation would thereby hamstring the parties' ability to fully remedy the wrongdoing underlying the lawsuit.

Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.

The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.

H.R. 732 would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time, while opening the doors to industry influence and obstruction in routine enforcement matters.

This legislation pushes the everyday hard working American to the margins of the justice system by requiring restitution only in cases with a showing of actual harm directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment.

The bill's definition excludes any payment by a party to provide restitution for, or otherwise, remedy the actual harm, directly and proximately caused by the alleged conduct of the party that is the basis for the settlement agreement, including payments requiring monitoring and other payments for generalized harm.

This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial uses of settlement monies, especially for vulnerable plaintiffs trying to access the courts in search of restitution from legitimate harm.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by this legislation.

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for conventional loans.

Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law, the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.

HUD has approved thirty-seven housing counseling intermediaries that financial institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department settlement agreements.

Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and remain homeowners.

In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.

Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.

The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be made available to the public.

This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my constituents.

There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout Texas.

The public has found itself in need of protection form environmental harms caused by absconding deep pocket defendants.

To ensure these protections, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may request Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by requiring parties to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or activity that ``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.

In workplace discrimination cases, victims are guarded by the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress in 1964 to remove discriminatory barriers and to promote equality in employment opportunities.

Cases, nonetheless, involving workplace discrimination claims often occur without identifiable victims and tend to affect the interests of persons who are not likely to receive compensation for unlawful conduct (e.g., unidentifiable victims such as former and future employees).

In these cases, a settling party that violated antidiscrimination laws may seek to resolve its civil liability through workplace monitoring or training programs that seek to remedy systemic unlawful conduct.

Furthermore, the claim that the funding received by organizations to provide home counseling services to harmed individuals amount to a ``slush fund,'' is an egregious and shameless attempt to smear and impugn the integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil rights organizations.

As the Justice Department has observed, remedies can correct both noncompliance and recidivism through settlement terms that require a party to undertake activity to prevent future misconduct.

Not only is this legislation an unnecessary intrusion into the province of the federal courts, it is a part of a larger push to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in a court of law.

An innocent-sounding name aside, this bill poses a grave threat to our court system--the nation's stronghold for protecting our democracy.

In the current political climate, where the justice system is the last line of defense for our nation's values, I urge my colleagues not to cede that ground.

Congress should applaud and elevate the benefits of housing counseling, and the good work of frontline organizations, in righting the injustices of the past and present.

The working men and women of America, as well as their families deserve fair and impartial access to real justice when major corporations, inadvertently as it may be, inflict harm.

It is our duty as guardians of the judicial system to ensure real restitution is available to all, including the most vulnerable.

For these reasons, I urge all Members to vote against H.R. 732.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from National Urban League and a letter from Public Citizen.

National Urban League,

New York, NY, February 1, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 732--The Stop Settlement Slush Funds

Act of 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers,

Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: As

President and CEO of the National Urban League, the nation's

largest historic civil rights organization dedicated to

economic empowerment of African Americans and other

underserved urban communities, I write to urge you to oppose

H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. This

legislation seeks to block federal law enforcement from

including in negotiated settlements payments that provide

relief to victims of predatory lending. Specifically, the

bill targets federally certified housing counseling

intermediaries such as the National Urban League by

preventing these organizations from providing housing

counseling relief to communities that have been preyed upon

by financial institutions that have broken the law. H.R. 732

fails to recognize the critical role and positive benefits

that housing counseling organizations now play in addressing

and ensuring that the discriminatory practices and abuses,

like those that led to the housing and financial crisis,

never happen again.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S.

Department of Justice pursued law suits against mortgage

lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending

practices. Research shows that African Americans and Latinos

were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans

even when they qualified for conventional loans. Moreover,

African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more

likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which

resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional

loans. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Justice

Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a

portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing

counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the

communities that were hit hardest.

The National Urban League is one of thirty-seven HUD-

approved housing counseling intermediaries that financial

institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party

providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice

Department settlement agreements. The National Urban League

is accredited by the Better Business Bureau and has a 4-star

rating from Charity Navigator, placing it in the top 10

percent of all U.S. charities for adhering to good

governance, fiscal responsibility and other best practices.

As a HUD-certified housing counseling provider, the

National Urban League successfully delivers financial

education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their

home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and

remain homeowners. In fact, since 2008, 40 of our affiliates

have provided housing counseling services--to date serving

more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs provided by

National Urban League and others is undisputed. Borrowers who

have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be

seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who

are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their

homes. The benefits of these programs are tangible and must

continue to be made available to the public.

On a separate note, it has come to my attention the

National Urban League and National Council of La Raza have

been singled out during recent hearings on this legislation.

The claims made during congressional testimony that the

funding received by our organizations to provide home

counseling services amounts to a ``slush fund,'' is an

egregious and shameless attempt to smear and impugn the

integrity of longstanding and trusted nonprofits and civil

rights organizations. Congress should applaud and elevate the

benefits of housing counseling, and the good work of

frontline organizations, like the National Urban League, in

righting the injustices of the past and present.

Therefore, I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 732 and

any efforts to include similar provisions in legislation

moving through Congress.

Sincerely,

Marc H. Morial,

President and CEO.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I think, when we come to the floor, we are obligated to as much educate our colleagues who may be back in their offices or in meetings as it is to educate the general public.

The name of this bill is distorted and incorrect. I think it is important to note what happens when the Department of Justice engages in lawsuits on behalf of the American people, and they are the American people's lawyer, or they are sued.

In many instances, there is something called a consent decree and a settlement that generates funds that can be utilized for the betterment of the American people.

So why don't you view this side of the aisle with the betterment of the American people because we are questioning legislation that would eliminate the opportunity for those who are doing good work to be funded by career professionals in the Justice Department.

So the basis of this bill is to throw this money over into the Congress, of which I have great respect in terms of its Article I powers, requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary fund established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to victims, such as in the case of predatory lending, employment discrimination, pollution, environmental hazards, and would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time.

They want us to now, line by line, disseminate these funds that can be done by career professionals dealing with improving on the issue upon which the government was sued. It opens the doors to industry influence and obstruction.

I don't believe we have earmarks anymore. I happen to be a supporter of getting moneys to the community. We don't have an appropriations bill now, we don't have a budget now. So it is almost November, and the Congress has not yet appropriated funds to run the government nor have they passed a budget. That would be the maze of which you would throw a very proficient process of allowing these funds to be distributed.

The Jackson Lee amendment would exempt from this confused bill settlement agreements that would provide restitution to States that are not parties to the litigation. That means, for example, after Hurricane Harvey, there was an explosion at the Arkema chemical plant. Nine trailers exploded and several first responders went to the hospital. I would want to seek funds to be able to help them.

We also understand that there are many organizations representing the people. Public Citizen, a nonprofit membership organization, they are against it. The Urban League is against it. The counties have issued a resolution, local counties. They are against it.

I think there is no clearer evidence to vote this particular bill down, but to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is my very point. My very point is a transparent and clear system of distribution of funds, and the career professionals determining what entities need those funds is a clearer system than what would occur if moneys were dumped onto Congress outside of the normal budgetary and appropriations process, of which we are having a very difficult time as we speak.

The process that we have now, my amendment says that these settlement agreements that provide restitution to States that are not parties to the litigation, they shouldn't be covered by the elimination of the right for the career professionals to distribute these funds.

It also acknowledges the respect for the Congress and the work that it has to do, but it also acknowledges counties like Jefferson County, Texas, the resolution to the National Association of Counties. They are against this bill because it would disallow funds derived from court settlements for injuries to the environment from being distributed to States, counties, and parishes, borrowers in proximity to the pollution event. These are real people representing real people right on the ground asking for us to not pass this legislation.

I would say to my good friend, why don't we use our Article I powers to begin investigations on the separation of powers relevant to the administration and its actions. Why don't we begin looking at whether there are high crimes and misdemeanors.

I mean, there are many things that our Article I powers can do, but, in this instance, I think that this has not proven to be a failure, and the only failure in it is the obsession that my friends have with the past administration.

I want to have something that has worked for the county governments, people who live in counties and cities and States. If they were harmed during Hurricane Harvey, for example, by an explosion and 23 first responders went to the hospital and many houses were evacuated, I believe it would be appropriate to leave the system in which those dollars can go directly to those counties and cities and States and to improve the quality of life.

Mr. Chair, I ask my friends to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, the proposed legislation, as currently drafted, could be construed to preclude all third-party payments in settlement agreements, other than restitution to identifiable victims.

Requiring a congressional appropriation for each beneficiary fund established as relief in a lawfully negotiated settlement to victims, such as in cases of predatory lending, employment discrimination and pollution through environmental hazardous, would greatly strain Congress' already limited legislative resources and scarce time, while opening the doors to industry influence and obstruction in routine enforcement matters.

Congress lacks the time, expertise, and resources to properly review and make enforcement decisions on behalf of Federal agencies.

The cost of delays associated with this scheme would have devastating consequences for the public health, environment, and local communities.

Accordingly, the Jackson Lee Amendment would excecpt cases where funds are directed to states to remediate the generalized harm of unlawful conduct beyond harms to identifiable victims.

Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment would exempt from H.R. 732 settlement agreements that provide restitution to states that are not parties to litigation.

As you know, following the subprime meltdown, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued lawsuits against mortgage lenders and banks that engaged in discriminatory lending practices, such as those targeted by this legislation.

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos were discriminated against and steered into subprime loans even when they qualified for conventional loans.

Moreover, African Americans and Latinos were two to three times more likely than white homebuyers to receive subprime loans which resulted in foreclosure rates 10 times that of conventional loans.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, available under current law, the Justice Department ordered that financial institutions dedicate a portion of their settlement payments to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) certified housing counseling intermediaries to provide consumer relief in the communities that were hit hardest.

HUD has approved 37 housing counseling intermediaries that financial institutions have the discretion to choose as third-party providers of consumer relief under the terms of the Justice Department settlement agreements.

Additionally, these HUD-certified housing counseling providers deliver financial education and coaching to individuals to inform them of their home-buying options and rights, and to ensure they become and remain homeowners.

In fact, since 2008, 40 affiliates have provided housing counseling services--to date serving more than 200,000 clients in mostly underserved areas.

The success of housing counseling programs is undisputed.

Borrowers who have used housing counseling are one-third less likely to be seriously delinquent on their loan payments, and those who are in default are 60 percent more likely to save their homes.

The benefits of these programs are tangible and must continue to be made available to the public.

This example is particularly pertinent as Houston recovers from hurricane Harvey, a tragedy that displaced tens of thousands of my constituents.

There are still over 61 thousand people living in hotels throughout Texas.

Under current law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlement agreements to offset the harms of unlawful conduct by requiring parties to undertake an environmentally beneficial project or activity that ``is not required by law,'' but that a defendant agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.

In 2012, the EPA and Justice Department resolved the civil liability of MOEX Offshore through a settlement agreement resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that included funds to several Gulf states, including Texas, where Texas was not a party to the complaint, but received $3.25 million for SEPs and other responsive actions.

H.R. 732, would prohibit these agreements and many of the important benefits now provided by EPA.

The bill's definition excludes, ``any payment by a party to provide restitution for or otherwise remedy the actual harm (including to the environment), directly and proximately caused by the alleged conduct of the party that is the basis for the settlement agreement.''

This exception is too narrowly drawn to allow for numerous beneficial uses of settlement monies.

Thus, for example, the bill would appear to ban the following entirely legitimate, appropriate uses of settlement funds that are currently permitted by EPA:

(1) Pollution prevention projects that improve plant procedures and technologies, and/or operation and maintenance practices, that will prevent additional pollution at its source;

(2) Environmental restoration projects including activities that protect local ecosystems from actual or potential harm resulting from the violation;

(3) Facility assessments and audits, including investigations of local environmental quality, environmental compliance audits, and investigations into opportunities to reduce the use, production, and generation of toxic materials;

(4) Programs that promote environmental compliance by promoting training or technical support to other members of the regulated community; and

(5) Projects that provide technical assistance or equipment to a responsible state or local emergency response entity for purposes of emergency planning or preparedness.

Each of these programs provide important protections of human health and the environment in communities that have been harmed by environmental violations.

However, because they are unlikely to be construed as redressing ``actual (environmental) harm, directly and proximately caused'' by the alleged violator, the bill before this committee would prohibit every one of them.

On August 31, 2017, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, dangerous chemicals at the Arkema chemical facility in Crosby, Texas, exploded and burned.

Nine trailers at the plant contained organic peroxides that first exploded and burned, sending 23 first responders to the hospital. In addition, despite a 1\1/2\ mile radius evacuation from the chemical releases, dozens of residents were effected for days by the noxious fumes, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and burning eyes.

This recent incident is a prime example of how restitution to a community under an enforcement settlement should work. EPA should (not sure if they are) engage in enforcement activities against Arkema, including civil fines and restitution to the community. There were

clear health impacts on many in the community and a settlement could, as an example, fund health care assistance short term, or even long term monitoring of lung health. However, if H.R. 732 were law, only first responders would likely have the ability to seek restitution. This is not okay. It utterly fails to help make a community whole after such a terrible event.

Background facts:

23 first responders were sent to the hospital due to exposure to chemical fumes.

Residents within a 1\1/2\ mile radius were asked to evacuate, though in this low-income neighborhood in the aftermath of the storm, many were unable to.

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), and original cosponsor of H.R. 732 and representative of the district that plant and affected community are located in, at the time told ABC News as events were unfolding that the situation was ``very dangerous . . . (and) . . . the worst-case scenario is that this chemical plant could explode.''

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Proposed Resolution on the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act

A resolution from Jefferson County, Texas to the National

Association of Counties seeking to maintain the status quo

for states, counties, parishes and boroughs being able to

receive damages payments for environmental crimes in

proximity to them (e.g., Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).

Issue: H.R. 732, a bill that may restrict or disallow

Department of Justice Supplemental Environmental Plans from

benefiting states, counties, parishes and boroughs in

proximity to pollution events that result in court

settlements for environmental damages.

Proposed Policy: The National Association of Counties

(NACo) opposes any provisions within the final version of

H.R. 732 that would disallow funds derived from court

settlements for injuries to the environment from being

distributed to states, counties, parishes and boroughs in

proximity to the pollution event.

Background: On Jan 30, 2017, Representative Goodlatte,

along with 34 other cosponsors, introduced the Stop

Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (H.R. 732) which could ban

or restrict the current practice involving Supplemental

Environmental Projects' distribution of court settlement

proceeds to states, counties, parishes and boroughs.

H.R. 732 has been referred to the U.S. House of

Representatives Judiciary Committee and assigned to the

Regulatory Reform, Commercial & Antitrust Law Subcommittee.

Members of the Committee are unclear about H.R. 732's

provisions relating to payments to remediate direct harm,

including environmental harm, done by defendant's wrongful

activity.

This is particularly important in the environmental

context, in which the injury to the environment may be

diffuse and there may be no identifiable victims.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Congress

may both have roles in determining eligibility for states,

counties, parishes and boroughs in proximity to a pollution

event for receiving funds from a settlement agreement.

H.R. 732 is unclear on this issue, prompting dissenting

opinions about whether the bill prevents states, counties,

parishes and boroughs in proximity to pollution events (e.g.,

the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills) from

receiving funds derived from court settlements.

NACo should oppose any provision in H.R. 732 that modifies

or restricts current practice in distributing proceeds from

court settlement agreements for environmental damage events.

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Congressional concurrence with

this NACo resolution upholds the status quo practice in court

settlement agreements for environmental events.

Sponsor: Jeff R. Branick, Judge, Jefferson County, Texas

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for his distinguished service and my good friend from Texas for his managing of this bill on which we have a vigorous and active disagreement, but realize that the role of the Committee on the Judiciary is to enhance justice for all Americans, no matter what size business, what ethnicity, racial background, what issue they bring, whether they bring a commercial issue or whether they are for criminal justice.

That is why I rise to oppose this legislation, for it is important that we monitor, promote, coddle, and respect justice. I oppose the legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993. I use as a premise of my argument a letter from the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, in particular written by two distinguished Federal judges from Arizona, the chair of the Committee on Rules and the chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules, both Federal district court judges. But more importantly, my luck was to meet with a series of judges in the past week, Federal judges, Republican appointees and some Democratic appointees, and there was a vocal outcry of the outrage of this legislation, asking and begging that this legislation not be put in place.

Let me give you a description from the Federal courts, recognizing: ``We of course share the desire of the sponsors of LARA to improve the civil justice system''--and that is the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act-- ``in our Federal courts, including the desire to reduce frivolous filings. But LARA creates a cure worse than the problem it is meant to solve.''

``Moreover, as we are both Federal trial judges, our perspective is informed by our ongoing daily experience with the practical operation of the rules.''

I, too, am concerned about small businesses. That is why we need to proceed as we are proceeding. It gives thoughtful judges the ability to protect those entities. The facts do not, according to the letter, support any assumption that mandatory sanctions deter frivolous filings.

``A decade of experience with the 1983 mandatory sanctions provision,'' they go on to say, ``demonstrated that it failed to provide meaningful relief from

the litigation behavior it was meant to address, and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the merits of cases.''

What good is that for the small litigant? What good will they have when they might be subject to satellite litigation? And so, Mr. Chairman, why would we want to return to the failed, discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993? H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before rule 11 proceedings commence. That is justice: I made a mistake, I want to withdraw it. I am suing a small business, I have a different perspective. I know the facts, let me withdraw it.

The cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation, and many cases required parallel proceedings. Here is the worst of it: Suppose we were back in 1954. Would Brown v. Board of Education be a frivolous lawsuit subject to sanctions, a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared State laws establishing separate public schools for Black and White students unconstitutional? What about Griswold in 1965? It would also be judged as a frivolous lawsuit.

Mr. Chairman, Griswold was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that we had a right to privacy. Or what about the famous case that was made into a movie, Loving v. Virginia? I think for almost 25 years this mixed-marriage couple could not live in their own State. A lawsuit would have been considered frivolous. Loving was a landmark case which decided Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was unconstitutional.

New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971, the question was on the constitutional freedom of the press. It reinforced the First Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to go back to the old days. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, to come up and to oppose the underlying bill in the name of justice for all.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a list of seven notable cases the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act may have barred from a courtroom.

seven notable cases the ``lawsuit abuse reduction act'' may have barred

from a courtroom

Contrary to proponents' claims, LARA does not deter

frivolous lawsuits. Rather it deters meritorious cases by

imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate for federal judges.

Mandatory sanctions inevitably chill meritorious claims

particularly in cases of first impression or involving new

legal theories, including cases to protect civil rights, the

right to privacy, the environment, collective bargaining and

the First Amendment. Our system of justice is a moving body

of law, and novel legal theories have the ability to shift

public policy and law.

Below are seven notable cases that LARA may have prevented

because the cases presented what--at the time they were

presented to the court--would have been considered novel

legal theories:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954):

Brown was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme

Court that declared state laws establishing separate public

schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The

decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896

which allowed state-sponsored segregation. The Court's

unanimous decision stated that ``separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal.'' As a result, de jure

racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for

integration and the civil rights movement.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965): Griswold was

a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the

Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved

a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.

By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on

the grounds that it violated the ``right to marital

privacy.''

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): In Lawrence, the

Supreme Court considered the issue of whether adult

consensual sexual activity is protected by the Fourteenth

Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The

Court found that the petitioners were free as adults to

engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their

liberty under the Due Process Clause. The decision

decriminalized the Texas law that made it illegal for two

persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual

conduct.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S.

497 (2007): In this case, twelve states and several cities of

the United States brought suit against the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the federal

agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

as pollutants. The Supreme Court found that Massachusetts,

due to its ``stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign

interests'' as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over

potential damage caused to its territory by global warming.

The Court rejected the EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act

was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section

giving the EPA authority to regulate ``air pollution

agent[s].''

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): Loving was a

landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme

Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation

statute, the ``Racial Integrity Act of 1924,''

unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal

restrictions on marriage in the United States.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971):

This case considered whether the New York Times and

Washington Post newspapers could publish the then-classified

Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. The

question before the Court was whether the constitutional

freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was

subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of

government to maintain the secrecy of information. The

Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the

right of the New York Times to print the materials.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)

(The Snail Darter Case): In TVA, the Supreme Court affirmed a

court of appeals' judgment, which agreed with the Secretary

of Interior that operation of the federal Tellico Dam would

eradicate an endangered species. The Court held that a prima

facie violation of Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16

U.S.C. Sec. 1536, occurred, and ruled that an injunction

requested by respondents should have been issued.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017,'' because it is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

I oppose this legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993.

The current Rule 11 allows federal courts, in their discretion, to impose sanctions for frivolous filings and it encourages litigants to resolve such issues without court intervention.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 to a cost-shifting sanction payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the Rule in effect from 1983 until 1993.

Why, Mr. Chair would we return to the failed and discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993?

H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any Rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before Rule 11 proceedings commence.

That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation; many cases required parallel proceedings--one on the merits of the lawsuit and one on the Rule 11 motion.

The 1983 rule had a particularly negative disproportionate impact on plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases, because plaintiffs in such cases often raise novel legal arguments, leaving them vulnerable to a Rule 11 motion by a defendant.

Reinstating this mandatory fee shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect on plaintiffs' claims, especially individual plaintiffs taking on large corporate interests.

Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

The imposition of mandatory fees and costs ultimately shifts the purpose of the Rule from deterrence to compensation, encouraging parties to always file Rule 11 motions in the hopes of gaining additional compensation.

Both the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court support preservation of the current version of Rule 11(c) and restoring the true balance between punishing unwarranted conduct and deterring unnecessary litigation.

Given the highly problematic experience under the 1983 rule, which sparked extensive and costly litigation, the rule burdened already strained federal court system, adversely affecting cases of all types, including civil litigation among businesses.

Congress should be looking for ways to decrease, not increase wasteful burdens on

courts, and should avoid rule changes that have a discriminatory impact on civil rights, employment, environmental, and consumer cases.

For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me again emphasize our mutual commitment to justice and why I think the underlying bill skews justice and tips the scale of justice on Lady Justice.

I again refer you to the sitting experts, and that is the Judicial Conference of the United States, comprised of Federal judges all across America. I can't help but recite this sentence that strikes me as one as strong as possible to have been cited in a letter.

Their referral to LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, in this one sentence, recognizing the concern about frivolous lawsuits or filings, they say:

But LARA creates a curse worse than the problem it is meant

to solve.

I think that that one sentence says it all. We are not here solving a problem. We are here creating a problem.

I am particularly struck by the comments regarding small businesses. My amendment improves H.R. 720 by preserving the current law and practice of courts awarding attorneys' fees when justice requires.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 to a cost-shifting sanction, payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the rule in effect from 1983 until 1993. That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation.

The Jackson Lee amendment would preserve the sanctions currently available under rule 11, which provide the correct balance in punishing unwarranted conduct--this is under the present status of rule 11-- without encouraging unnecessary litigation.

Specifically, my amendment will strike a provision of the legislation that mandates the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Instead, it restores judicial discretion to award such fees and costs when warranted.

Take small business A, who is mad at big bank XYZ. They mishandled my account, and they filed a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the bookkeeper--not accountant--bookkeeper that the small business used really made the mistake, but the judge, recognizing the small business had good intentions, would not have to mandatorily force them to be sanctioned and to pay attorneys' fees but might then have discretion. That is how you help small business A.

I ask my colleagues to support the reasonable Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 720.

My amendment improves H.R. 720 by preserving the current law and practice of courts awarding attorney fees when justice so requires.

As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 11 to a cost-shifting sanction payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the Rule in effect from 1983 until 1993.

That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would preserve the sanctions currently available under Rule 11, which provide the correct balance in punishing unwarranted conduct, without encouraging unnecessary litigation.

Specifically, my amendment will strike a provision of the legislation that mandates the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and instead restores judicial discretion to award such fees and costs when warranted.

The Jackson Lee Amendment preserves the balance found in the current version of Rule 11, which gives the court discretion to determine an appropriate sanction.

H.R. 720 seeks a return to the failed and discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993.

By eliminating the mandatory fee-shifting provision, the 1993 Rule discouraged satellite litigation and encouraged parties to move forward with the merits of the case.

Under the prior Rule 11, during the 1983-1993 time, mandatory fee- shifting was used to discourage plaintiffs from bringing meritorious claims using novel legal theories in civil rights and employment rights cases.

Reinstating this mandatory fee shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect on plaintiffs claims, especially individual plaintiffs taking on large corporate interests.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would preserve the current version of Rule 11(c) and restore the true balance between punishing unwarranted conduct and deterring unnecessary litigation.

The old rule disproportionately affected plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases.

Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

The imposition of mandatory fees and costs shifts the purpose of the Rule from deterrence to compensation, encouraging parties to always file Rule 11 motions in the hopes of gaining additional compensation.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Judicial Conference of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 13, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to present the views of the

Judicial Conference Rules Committees on H.R. 758, the Lawsuit

Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.

As the current chairs of the Judicial Conference's

Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure (the

``Standing Committee'') and the Advisory Committee on the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the ``Advisory

Committee''), we oppose H.R. 758, which seeks to reduce

lawsuit abuse by amending Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The bill would reinstate a mandatory

sanctions provision of Rule 11 adopted in 1983 and removed as

counterproductive in 1993. The bill would also eliminate a

provision adopted in 1993 that allows a party to withdraw

challenged pleadings. Our concerns mirror the views expressed

by the Judicial Conference in 2004 and 2005, and by the

Standing Committee and Advisory Committee in 2011 and 2013,

in response to similar legislation, and reflect our ongoing

daily experience with the practical operation of the rules.

We share the desire of the sponsors of H.R. 758 to improve

the civil justice system in our federal courts, including the

desire to reduce frivolous filings. But legislation that

would restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 would create a cure

worse than the problem it is meant to solve. Such legislation

also contravenes the longstanding Judicial Conference policy

opposing direct amendment of the federal rules by legislation

rather than through the deliberative process Congress

established in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C.

Sec. Sec. 2071-2077.

A decade of experience with the 1983 mandatory sanctions

provision demonstrated that it failed to provide meaningful

relief from the litigation behavior it was meant to address,

and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had

little to do with the merits of cases. The 1983 version of

Rule 11 required sanctions for every violation of the rule,

and quickly became a tool of abuse. Aggressive filings of

Rule 11 sanctions motions required expenditure of tremendous

resources on Rule 11 battles having nothing to do with the

merits of the case and everything to do with strategic

gamesmanship. Many Rule 11 motions in turn triggered counter-

motions seeking Rule 11 sanctions as a penalty for filing of

the original Rule 11 motion.

The 1993 changes to Rule 11 followed years of examination

and were made on the Judicial Conference's strong

recommendation, with the Supreme Court's approval, and

effective only following a period of congressional review.

The 1993 amendments were designed to remedy the major

problems with the rule, strike a fair balance between

competing interests, and allow parties and courts to focus on

the merits of the underlying cases. Since 1993, the rule has

included a safe harbor, providing a party 21 days within

which to withdraw a particular claim or defense before

sanctions can be imposed. If the party fails to withdraw an

allegedly frivolous claim or defense within that time, a

court may impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable

attorney fees. Under the 1993 amendments, sanctioning of

discovery-related abuse remains available under Rules 26 and

37, which provide for sanctions that include awards of

reasonable attorney fees.

Minimizing frivolous filings is vital. The current rules

give judges tools to deal with frivolous pleadings, including

the imposition of sanctions where warranted. Rule 12(b)(6)

authorizes courts to dismiss pleadings that fail to state a

claim. Section 1927 of Title 28 of the United States Code

authorizes sanctions against lawyers for ``unreasonably and

vexatiously'' multiplying the proceedings in any case. Other

tools to address frivolous filings include 28 U.S.C.

Sec. 1915(e), which requires courts to dismiss cases brought

in forma pauperis that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to

state a claim, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A, which requires

courts to dismiss prisoner complaints against governmental

entities, officers, or employees that are frivolous,

malicious, or fail to state a claim.

Some may ask, why not give courts another tool to deter

frivolous filings by reinstating the 1983 version of Rule 11?

The answer is that the very process Congress established to

consider rule proposals exposed the 1983 version of Rule 11

as superficially appealing, but replete with unintended

consequences, chiefly an explosion of satellite litigation.

Congress designed the Rules Enabling Act process in 1934, and

reformed it in 1988, to produce the best rules possible

through broad public participation and review by the bench,

the bar, and the academy. The Enabling Act charges the

judiciary with the task of neutral, independent, and thorough

analysis of the rules and their operation. The Rules

Committees undertake extensive study of the rules, including

empirical research, so that they can propose rules that will

best serve the American justice system while avoiding

unintended consequences. Experience has shown that this

process works well. Direct amendment of Rule 11 will not only

circumvent the effective Rules Enabling Act process Congress

implemented, but as the careful study of Rule 11 undertaken

by the Rules Committees over many years demonstrates, direct

amendment of Rule 11 as envisioned by H.R. 758 would work

against the laudable purpose of improving the administration

of justice.

Before proposing the 1993 amendments, the Advisory

Committee reviewed several empirical studies of the 1983

version of Rule 11, including studies conducted by the

Federal Judicial Center in 1985 and 1988, a Third Circuit

Task Force report on Rule 11 in 1989, and a New York State

Bar Committee report in 1987. In 1990, the Advisory Committee

issued a call for general comments on the rule. The response

was substantial and clearly called for a change. The Advisory

Committee concluded that Rule 11's cost-shifting provision

created an incentive for too many unnecessary Rule 11

motions. Amendments to Rule 11 were drafted by the Advisory

Committee and approved by the Standing Committee and Judicial

Conference. The Supreme Court approved the amendments and

transmitted them to Congress in May 1993 after extensive

scrutiny and debate by the bench, bar, and public in

accordance with the Rules Enabling Act process.

The amended rule has produced a marked decline in Rule 11

satellite litigation without any noticeable increase in

frivolous filings. In June 1995, the Federal Judicial Center

conducted a survey of 1,130 lawyers and 148 judges on the

effects of the 1993 amendments. The Center found general

satisfaction with the amended rule, and that a majority of

the responding judges and lawyers did not favor a return to

mandatory sanctions when the rule is violated.

In 2005, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal trial

judges to get a clearer picture of how the revised Rule 11

was operating. A copy of the study is enclosed. The study

showed that judges on the front lines--those who must contend

with frivolous litigation and apply Rule II--strongly believe

that the current rule works well. The study's findings

include the following highlights:

More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed

indicated that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it

now stands'';

87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version

or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 (the

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004) or H.R. 420 (the Lawsuit

Abuse Reduction Act of 2005));

85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe

harbor provisions;

91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions

be imposed for every Rule 11 violation;

84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of

attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11

violation;

85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil

litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993

rule (for judges commissioned before 1992) or since their

first year as a federal district judge (for judges

commissioned after January 1, 1992); and

72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery

abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11.

The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the

judiciary's united opposition to legislation amending Rule

11. Lawyers share this view. The American Bar Association has

opposed H.R. 758. Indeed, of the 200 lawyers, litigants,

judges, and academics who participated in the 2010 conference

at Duke University Law School convened by the Advisory

Committee to search for ways to address the problems of costs

and delay in civil litigation, nobody proposed a return to

the 1983 version of Rule 11.

Thank you for considering the views of the Standing

Committee and Advisory Committee. We look forward to

continuing to work with you to ensure that our civil justice

system fulfills its vital role. If you or your staff have any

questions, please contact Rebecca Womeldorf, Secretary to the

Standing Committee.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey S. Sutton,

United States Circuit Judge Sixth Circuit,Chair, Committee

on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

David G. Campbell,

United States District Judge District of Arizona, Chair,

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, reading again from the Judicial Conference letter, it says: The facts do not support any assumption that mandatory sanctions under H.R. 720--that is what the bill is about--deter frivolous filings. All it does, after a decade of experience, is that it demonstrates that it failed to provide meaningful relief from the litigation behavior it was supposed to address.

What it will do is it will punish the small business. By eliminating the mandatory fee-shifting provision, the 1993 rule discouraged satellite litigation. Reinstating this mandatory fee-shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect.

The Jackson Lee amendment would give the courts discretion to protect against the mom-and-pop business from having to pay because they mistakenly thought big bank XYZ did them in, and it really was a mistake on their part.

Sanctions are more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants, more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kind of cases, primarily civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases.

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka might have been perceived to be outrageous--how dare you try to strike down the separate but equal--and yet it has had an amazing impact and a case of moment in history.

Or the Loving v. Virginia, when two individuals who loved each other still were kept out of Virginia because they were of different races, it was absurd to file that lawsuit at that time. Yet, if they had not, or if these kinds of penalties were in place, they might be suffering mandatory sanctions and kept out of the courthouse.

A leading study on this issue showed that, although civil rights cases make up 11.4 percent, 22.7 percent of the cases in which sanctions have been imposed are civil rights cases.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. In order to foster justice, support the Jackson Lee amendment, which restores to the courts judicial discretion on penalties and sanctions, if you will, and listen to the Judicial Conference: this is a curse worse than the problem.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I support Representative Conyers' amendment.

I include in the Record in support of our amendment a Judicial Conference letter dated April 13, 2015, and letters from a number of organizations, including the Alliance for Justice and the American Association for Justice.

I also include in the Record a letter from the American Bar Association, who begins their message:

``On behalf of the American Bar Association, ABA, and its over 400,000 members, I am writing to urge you to vote against H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act . . . which is scheduled for a floor vote this week.''

Re Groups Strongly Oppose Attacks on Civil Justice.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: On

February 2, the House Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled

to mark up several bills that collectively would make it more

difficult for Americans to enforce their legal rights, and

would place unreasonable burdens on the federal judiciary and

federal enforcement officials. The undersigned organizations

strongly oppose these bills as harmful and unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At this time, I would like to include in the Record a number of exhibits:

Exhibit A, in which under oath we had testimony that said the Department of Justice did not want to be in the business of picking or choosing organizations that may or may not receive any funding under an agreement.

Yet, exhibit B, in which the number three at Department of Justice under President Obama said, ``Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate money toward organizations of our choosing,'' in a $9 billion settlement.

And in exhibit C, in which they specifically said they had concerns, including not allowing Citibank to pick a statewide intermediary like Pacific Legal Foundation that does conservative causes.

exhibit a

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, let me just add that this

committee will not stand silent, nor will, I am sure, the

Financial Service Committee, and you can expect that this

will escalate if you do not provide the documentation that we

requested over 2 months ago.

Secondly, did anyone at the Department of Justice ever

consider the serious appearance of impropriety in requiring

banks to make available to activist organizations the lion's

share of funding that Congress has previously cut off to

them? That is one of the reasons why we want to see the

communications. We want to know what considerations went into

making this decision to take this action.

Mr. GRABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, understand the

concern. And I can tell you that one of the reasons that the

Department wanted to use a preexisting list, the one that I

believe you are referring to, the HUD approved counseling

agency list, is because that list is preexisting. The

Department did not want to be in the business of picking and

choosing which organization may or may not receive any

funding under the agreement.

Chairman GOODLATTE. No, but it is the Congress'

responsibility to appropriate funds, and the Congress'

responsibility to be picking and choosing who gets

appropriations for expenditures. And we want to know what

connection there is between the fact that cuts were made and

. . .

exhibit b

From: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG)

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:58 AM

To (OLC); Seitz, Virginia A (OLC)

Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG); Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG) (OLC)

Subject: back again with questions

I'm sorry to be a pest. We keep tinkering with the

settlement agreement and I want to make sure that we are

doing it right. I also am not sure that I am a good messenger

between you and Tony because he asks me follow up questions

that I'm not sure I can answer. Do you have a few minutes

today to meet with Tony and let him ask you questions

directly?

Here are our current issues:

Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money

toward an organization of our choosing? We have been

discussing having the agreement provide that JPM agreed to

pay $9 billion but that, if, by the time we sign the

settlement agreement, JPM has given $60 million to x

organization, they will only have to pay $8.04 billion. I

think that's ok. We understand that we would have no control

over what x organization does with the money.

Thanks

exhibit c part i

From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah (OAAG)

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:07 PM

To: (A2J)

Subject: RE: new language

Thanks! We made the proposal. They had one question

whenever you have a moment.

From: (A2J)

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:47 AM

To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)

Subject: RE: new language

You go girl. The prospective settlement was on NPR this

morning, in case you didn't have your radio on . . .

Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:42 AM

To: (A2J)

Subject: RE: new language

Cool. I will keep you posted.

From (A2J)

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:34 AM

To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)

Cc (A2J)

Subject: RE: new language

Importance: High

Got it. Ok, this will hopefully address the concerns we'd

like to avert:

Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account

(IOLTA) organizations (or other statewide bar-association

affiliated intermediaries) that provide funds to legal aid

organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention legal

assistance and community redevelopment legal assistance.

Concerns include: a) not allowing Citi to pick a statewide

intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation (does

conservative property-rights free legal services) or a

statewide pro bono entity (will conflict out of most

meaningful foreclosure legal aid) we are more likely to get

the right result from a state bar association affiliated

entity; b) making

exhibit c part II

sure that it's legal assistance provided, not a scenario

where the bank can direct IOLTA or other intermediary to give

to even a legal aid organization but to do only housing

counseling, for example, under the umbrella ``foreclosure

prevention assistance.''

This get you closer?

Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG)

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:10 PM

To (A2J)

Subject: new language

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If the minority has not gone through the discovery that we have, that we placed in the Record, I will be glad to give Mr. Cicilline or anyone else a copy.

I am just going to repeat, though, after receiving testimony that they didn't pick winners and losers, what we are marking as exhibit B and exhibit C make it clear they were, and specifically choosing, to exclude a ``conservative group.''

I think the important things here, though, Mr. Chairman, are if they want to have money in a settlement, such as the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, they certainly could, as long as it directly provides aid to the victims; which, of course, cleanup did. But when we look at these others, one of the great things is if they want to put it into a victim's fund as part of it, a government-controlled fund, they can if they want.

If the Department of Justice wants specific authority the way they do, for example, in water settlements, particularly related to Native American Tribes, they offer a deal, they put one together, and, Mr. Chairman, they come to Congress. This Congress, in the last Congress, settled multiple longstanding disputes with Tribes. What is interesting is they made sure the money went to those who had been harmed when they came to Congress and said: Please codify this agreement.

But in the many agreements that seems to go on in the Obama administration--and we now have the smoking gun of that--they made political decisions. Making political decisions is why you have to put this back in the light of day and with real congressional oversight.

What is amazing is, during the markup of this bill, there were a number of Members of the other party who specifically talked about not trusting the current occupant of the White House and the current Attorney General. It baffles me that they would not want to take back this authority knowing that the Department of Justice could bring to us a request for a bill that would authorize a specific settlement that could have outside groups or grant authority on a case-by-case basis.

The reality is the slush fund system has to stop. That is why Chairman Goodlatte's bringing this bill today was so critical.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

It is majority. Yes, you have copies of it.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asks for a colloquy.

Although I don't have them, I am sure they prove the same point: that the light of day, the cleanliness of sunlight, and congressional oversight and appropriation would have protected against the abuses the gentleman is probably describing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's points are good. I am afraid his conclusion may be the part I have to differ slightly with, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman from Tennessee is right to note past and other indiscretions. That is why we have this bill before you today. In fact, it is why passage is so important.

We don't want to have anybody of either party--the current occupant of the White House is from my party, a Republican. The current Attorney General is from my party, a Republican and former Republican Senator. The fact is that now is the time not to necessarily disparage any past activity but to stop it.

We are not a body that is supposed to trust as much as we are a body to have some trust and to verify. When we find wrongdoing, it is our job to make sure it doesn't happen again. This bill, including the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, seeks to do that. I am convinced that it is good for that reason, and it is even good for the example that Mr. Cohen suggests.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure I provide a little clarity. We are not talking about leftwing, rightwing, or other groups who get it. What we are talking about is a basic question of fungibility of money.

If something has been done wrong and a judge or the Department of Justice has X amount of determination of wrongdoing, the first question is: How much of that money can get to the victims? In a perfect world, the victims are made 100 percent whole. In a perfect world, 100 percent of the money passes from the perpetrator to the victim.

The Department of Justice making a decision not to a left- or rightwing group, but a political decision to give $1 million to the Coast Guard, to their charitable foundation, was a decision that clearly was not part of the mitigation but, rather, a general charitable decision. That was $1 million that did not go to the victim, did not go to the general Treasury, but it went to the whims of a bureaucrat.

We seek to make sure that, if that is an appropriate action, they come to Congress with that and not decide that charity begins with some unelected individual in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in short response.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes the obvious is missed in the debate. The gentleman from Georgia talks about locking down power. Quite frankly, Republicans do have a majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate, and the current occupant of the White House is from my party. So when we are trying to reduce potential misconduct by the executive branch, we are not doing it to take any money away.

As a matter of fact, this law would clearly cause more money to flow from the same amount of initial payment, more money to flow to the victims. So we are trying to flow more money to the victims. We are in no way reducing any aspect of settlements other than, if the current occupant of the White House, the President, and the Attorney General want to give to the charity of their choice, they can either do it with their own money or they can come to Congress for authority.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. The idea that you can pay a fine to get out from underneath criminal prosecution is one that I would like to see either eclipsed to where it is almost invisible and rarely used or done away with altogether. I would certainly agree to join with the gentleman in finding further prohibitions to that practice.

It has been too often that a corporation able to pay large amounts of money not only escapes its actions, but, of course, it escapes the prosecution of key individuals who may, in some cases, be responsible for the loss of life and/or health.

So I want to join with the gentleman from New Jersey. That is not what this bill is about. It doesn't deal with it, nor does it fail to deal with it. It is not the subject of the bill.

I urge the gentleman, who does agree with a portion of what we have to say, to work with me. I will be happy to be his cosponsor on a piece of legislation to try to curtail that practice.

Today, we are trying to curtail a practice in which we have examples of both Republicans and Democrats in the Office of the Attorney General, their justice departments, from making settlements that seem to have political bias. And that is what we are here to stop.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman spoke quickly, and I know she had a lot of important information there. Some of it simply was wrong.

One of them is that she touched on environmental cleanup. Very clearly, nothing in this legislation would limit the cleanup related to the wrongdoing or the damage. Not so. A third party could be hired to do the cleanup.

Additionally, nothing stops a settlement from requiring a company to have counseling or other mitigation. It simply stops the Department of Justice from picking a charity of its choosing to go do it.

Now what I would really like the gentlewoman--who may not be on the floor any longer--to understand is that the Department of Justice has grant authority and does multiple grants every single month of the year to some of the very same groups under its authority that these settlements are going toward. Congress has allowed it a certain amount of money to provide grants for general harm.

Additionally, every year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the very same groups and efforts the gentlewoman knows that we are talking about.

So, although her speech was quick, the thing that she said that may have misled some people here in the Chamber I think needs to be corrected. Direct harm will be mitigated. It can be done by anyone. A company can agree and be forced under supervision to mitigate and to hire people to help in that effort.

Very clearly, many of the groups being talked about here today already receive money through the grant process or through direct appropriation by Congress. That is the right way to do it. It is the reason this is a bipartisan bill and this is an effort by our Congress to make sure that we hold the reins of authority where they should be under the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am putting this sign up not for the people in the Chamber, because people in the Chamber on the other side have continued to read the same talking points from their leadership that says there is no evidence.

This is in the record. This is a bigger part of it. So for the people in their offices who will come down to vote, if there is not a motion to recommit, they are not going to get an opportunity to see this.

So I hope that they will look just now and realize this is one of those things you don't normally get. As Chairman Goodlatte said, this is a smoking gun. This is a clear statement that an ideological bent against a nonprofit was very specifically there, while other emails in the same chain of emails shows that they were picking who they wanted.

That is the politics that was going on. It is the politics we are trying to prevent. As I said in my previous statement, the Department of Justice is given a number of dollars for grant programs, and we may not always agree with how those grant programs are run, but we give them that.

Additionally, the Congress appropriates a tremendous amount of money, much of it going to the same groups. A little over 1\1/2\ years ago, 2 years ago, this body came together on the reauthorization on Violence Against Women, which has and will continue to do very good work in exactly the area that people are talking about.

This is the reason we have legislation before us today. We have had political activity that has been going on, according to the Democrats, by Republican Attorneys General; according to this document, by the last Attorneys General. The fact is, we need the legislation. We have to have it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I don't believe there is any question at all but that the minority has missed the point. In no way, shape, or form are we changing. We intend to make sure the Department of Justice prosecutes wrongdoing, both criminal and civil.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) rightfully said we shouldn't have money paid in lieu of criminal prosecution; it should be both. I agree with him.

What we are dealing with here is a recognition that, under Republican and Democratic administrations, we have had mandatory donations that, in fact, went to charities, if you will, or organizations of the choice of those political entities. The fact is what we are doing is reining in--reining in--wrongdoing that is actual and has been observed, nothing more.

One of the challenges we face every day and one of the reasons I am imploring both sides to come together on this vote, one of the challenges we face is how much of our obligation we have ceded to the executive branch, often then only to be horrified when, behind closed doors, unelected, unaccountable people make decisions that would never be made on the House floor or the Senate floor, and this is one of them.

We are scrutinized when we pick nonprofits to provide funding to on the left, on the right, or, if there is such a thing left in America, in the middle. We are scrutinized. But when we scrutinize the Department of Justice's action, according to my colleagues, under Republicans, there has been clear wrongdoing. According to the documents that we put in the Record today and showed on the floor, in the last administration, there was clear partisan politics.

We are simply saying, if they want to make that kind of a settlement, bring it to Congress; otherwise, it is very clear that they must--and I repeat, must--stop the action of taking money that would otherwise go to the victims and moving it to nondescript third parties of their choosing, no matter how benevolent they might be, including the Coast Guard Foundation. It can't continue to happen. We have to have the money that is in settlements flow to the victims or flow to the Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 577 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 577, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, and H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for each of the bills under consideration, and also provides for a motion to recommit on both bills. Additionally, the rule makes in order six amendments to each bill, respectively, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Representative Jamie Raskin. In addition to the discussion of the underlying legislation at the Rules Committee, I previously joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in a robust debate of the major components of these bills at Judiciary markups earlier this year.

I introduced H.R. 469 to address a problem that, unfortunately, has become all too common: the practice of regulating behind closed doors and absent public input through what is known as sue and settle agreements.

H.R. 469 also includes the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, introduced by Representative Chris Stewart, and the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

The rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, which was introduced after an extensive investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was systemically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to activist groups.

The legislation provided for by today's rule strengthens the balance of power and Congress' Article I authority, which we have allowed executive agencies to erode over time.

Regardless of the political party in power, Congress has a constitutional obligation to carry out its duties and ensure that the legislative branch writes the law. When Congress fulfills its role as intended, the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the electorate and more accountable to our citizenry.

My legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, otherwise known as sue and settle, addresses the problem of regulation through litigation. We have seen this problem explode in recent years, particularly under the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, I could offer you dozens of examples of this abuse, yet my time would expire long before I could list them all. A few particularly notable examples, however, highlight the enormous costs and burdens that regulation through litigation can impose on unsuspecting Americans.

The infamous Utility MACT and Boiler MACT rules resulted from sue and settle cases. They carry price tags of $9.6 billion and $3 billion in costs and compliance, respectively.

The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act rules boast a whopping $18 billion in compliance costs. These rules also resulted from covert sue and settle maneuvers.

I don't think it is fair to ask hardworking job creators, farmers, and ranchers of northeast Georgia--or anywhere in this Nation, for that matter--to foot the bills for policy that bureaucrats secretly put in place.

I am sad to report that the prevalence of these sue and settlement agreements have only grown in recent years. The second term of the previous administration brought us 77 sue and settle cases related to the Clean Air Act. By comparison, President Clinton's second term witnessed 27 sue and settle cases, and President Bush's second term saw 28 such cases.

But let me also say just right there, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't matter which administration or which party is in the White House. This is not a bill that is designed to go for one party or another. It is simply saying that there is an Article I of the Constitution, and that is the legislative branch that writes the laws, and then the executive is to enforce the laws, not write them. I want to make it clear--and I know it is going to be talked about that this is not, but I do want to make it clear that this is for any administration.

The Obama administration's penchant for circumventing Congress and its constitutional authority was incredible, and its legacy has endured. The weight of these improper agreements hangs around the necks of American businesses, employees, farmers, and ranchers.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has recognized the impropriety of this practice and is taking steps to start curbing abuse of sue and settle agreements and the Federal rulemaking process. In fact, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently issued a directive to increase public engagement in policymaking at the EPA.

This is a critical step and one that I applaud, but it doesn't negate the need for Congress to act decisively. In fact, it only highlights it. Congress has a right and an obligation to defend its constitutional prerogatives.

Like the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulator Decrees and Settlements Act, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act will make our government more accountable to the people by providing real transparency. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is based upon the principle that the American people have the right to know how their government is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Judgment Fund was created over 50 years ago as a way to provide for efficient payment of lawful claims against the U.S., but it has become a permanent appropriation shrouded in secrecy.

While many payments out of the Judgment Fund are both legitimate and appropriate, the fund remains the subject of egregious abuse. For example, last year, the administration paid Iran $1.3 billion out of the Judgment Fund--primarily in the form of foreign currency--as a payment for the interest that had accrued on Iranian assets

that had been frozen because Iran sponsors terrorism without shame. As you might imagine, the Obama administration stonewalled congressional efforts to investigate those payments.

This much-needed legislation would not only ensure that such payments could not be hidden from Congress and the Americans they represents, it outright prohibits payments to state sponsors of terrorism and foreign terrorist organizations, which should be one of the least controversial actions ever to grace the floor of this House.

As I have said before, transparency and accountability are the best remedies for a government run amuck. Title III of H.R. 469, Chairman Goodlatte's legislation, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, will further strengthen Congress' powers under Article I and, in doing so, will help restore checks and balances between the three branches of government.

When the Federal courts are deciding important matters regarding the Constitution, congressional powers, and Federal law, it is critical that Congress have the opportunity, should it deem the action necessary, to file an amicus or otherwise intervene in pending litigation.

The need for this legislation is compounded when, as was the case during the previous administration, the executive branch decides not to defend constitutionality of Federal law. This leads our adversarial legal system without anyone to litigate significant cases and shifts interpretation of the Constitution from the courts to the executive branch.

This provision will ensure that the House, like the Senate, has a statutory right to file amicus briefs or intervene when Congress' powers and responsibilities are called into question.

The Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, like the other bills contained in this measure, is an important step toward restoring government transparency, balance, and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, you might be able to detect a theme that is emerging here today. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure the American people have a government by the people and for the people. We are working to restore the balance of powers that our forefathers put into place and to ensure that the executive overreach that was the hallmark of the previous administration won't be able to undermine transparency in the future.

In that vein, the rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prevents the Department of Justice from subverting Congress' power of the purse by prohibiting settlements that direct payments to a nonvictim third party. Again, the misdirection of funds to irrelevant third parties is a problem that we have seen grow and that must be addressed.

Under the previous administration, the Department of Justice funneled nonvictim third party groups as much as $880 million. The Department of Justice did this by collecting money from parties who had broken the law and then using that money to create a slush fund for special interest groups rather than sending the money to victims of illicit activity.

The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment obligations. Let me say that again. The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment obligations.

Interestingly, in some settlements under the previous administration, credit for direct relief to consumers was counted only as dollar for dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on directing these funds to nonvictim third party groups.

The Department of Justice's policy move actually incentivized the funneling of money to nonvictim groups rather than the people who were injured. The slush fund scheme actually disadvantaged victims in favor of special interests.

For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) from the Second District. He is a sponsor of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), from Georgia's 12th Congressional District, to speak on these issues of Article I.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that this body can do better. My friend from Florida outlined his opinion of what those may be. He also outlined his opinion of what will be a nice Georgia victory come Saturday, this weekend, in Jacksonville. I do appreciate his acknowledgement of what will be coming.

But I think there are also some other things that we need to discuss, and we can talk about that. I will take, first off, the issue of the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, which I believe, frankly, I have the privilege of serving on what I believe are two of the hardest- working and longest-hour committees on this Hill, and that is the Rules Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Goodlatte is very thoughtful.

We can disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand my friend's frustration on issues of closed bills which do come and have been under both parties, but today's bills are not one of those. These two bills both have amendments that are offered on the floor by both parties. There are Republican amendments and there are Democrat amendments. This is not one of those.

So I think, from the perspective of how process and regular order-- and we can go through those--I would stand with my chairman and Chairman Goodlatte on that issue that we are working toward, and it is something that really matters here.

I think also, as we look at this, it is talking about grasping of straws. One of the things is we can get sidelined many times on looking at what could be or want to be and what we want to focus on. But also, it is a matter--as I come down here in this role many times, let's focus on the line right now, let's focus on the minute ahead, let's focus on the next vote, and that is

talking about these bills in this process.

I thought it was interesting to say that these are solutions in search of a problem. It is really interesting to me that, undoubtedly, these solutions in search of a problem--I think the problem is when they have, especially under sue and settle, $9.6 billion annual cost, $500 million in the first year cost; Oil and Gas Rule, $738 million annually; $632 million annually for the Florida Nutrient Standards and Estuary Flowing Waters Rule; Boiler MACT, $3 billion. I mean, I could go on. And $90 billion for reconsideration of 2008 ozone.

Let's make it very clear what sue and settle does. Sue and settle does not take the power for an agency to enter into a consent decree. Consent decrees are used often. The problem with this one is that when you have two parties on the same page suing, in essence, what amounts to one so that they can get a desired result without talking to the others who were affected, that is just wrong.

It is like me taking another congressman, or you, Mr. Speaker, and saying: You know, let's work out a deal.

But the reality is it is going to affect my friend from across the aisle, but we are not going to tell him. We are simply going to say: We are going to work our deal out. We are going to go to the Court. We are going to get the Court to sign off on it and we are going to implement everything that we have without proper insight and oversight.

That is all that we are asking for. It is called fairness. I am not sure how you could be against that, unless you like the idea of writing regulatory law in cubicles down the street instead of here on the floor of the House.

The other issue I see here is this issue of slush funds. We have talked about this, and the gentleman put 10 pages into the Record. He can put 49 into the Record; he can put 550 into the Record of eligible agencies for this money.

The problem is not eligible agencies. Number one, they are not victims. Number two, they are not part of the suit, yet we are giving it at sometimes double the rate to the offenders. Those that the Justice Department said were doing wrong--let's get this clear. Like in the housing issue--said you are doing wrong in this mortgage issue.

But what we are going to do, instead of giving the money at 1:1 back to victims, we are going to give it at 2:1 if you go to our preferred charity in donation form. It sounds like to me the only people who are getting problematic here are the victims of it; and the others of these pages of people who may or may not have political leanings or religious leanings or anything else, they are the recipient of the lottery.

They said, ``We will go help these people; give us money,'' instead of saying this is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a settlement to the victims.

It also has been said that this is just giving money to help those in those areas so that they can get back on their feet. But it also went further than that. There were two instances in particular that I can come up with: the Housing Council, which this body said we are not funding any longer, yet the administration used these donations to circumvent the appropriations process and fund it. That is not the role of the executive branch. That is an article I role.

The electric vehicle subsidy, $2 billion, again, this body said no. They said: No worries. We will go get a settlement. We will just take the donations and we will fund something that Congress has already said no on.

So it is easy to paint with broad strokes and say this is not important, this does not matter. But for some of us it does matter.

Those stories--why people are so upset when they look at this town is they just remember what their old civic books told them: that there was a Congress, there was an executive branch, and there was a judicial branch; each required all to do their part.

If we decide that it is too far down the road, let's bind the hands of the executive branch. We will do whatever. This is nothing except Congress saying this is what we are going to do. It is saying, this is what matters for us. And we may call it cheap; we may call it little; we may call it solutions in search of a problem, but you talk about the businessowners and the industries and the States who had to pay out on these sue and settle agreements.

When you talk about the millions--the billions that were sent to Iran, I think there will be a lot of people, when you look at both sides of this case, who will say: Yes, Congress, I want you to stop this because this is the way it should be set up.

That is why these bills are on the floor today. That is why we are taking them up. That is the reason we are bringing them forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.