Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee and the manager of this presentation on the floor for dealing with H.R. 788.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to save lives. This baffles me when good work is being done and has been done over the years. No one has complained about misconduct of the recipients of the settlement funds helping people who have been impacted negatively, sometimes with irreparable harm. They are assisted by a number of organizations making a difference.

Rather, we want to go forward with the corporate unaccountability act, making this an unreasonable attempt and unconstitutional attempt by Members on the other side to stop protecting victims and protect wrongdoers, which is a continuation of the dangerous behavior that has brought about this settlement.

What do Americans look to their Federal Government for? They look to the government to be their rock, their anchor in times of natural disasters, man-made and otherwise. They look to their government in times of war and peace for us to defend this Nation. They certainly look to make sure that in the normal comings and goings of their work with their families, their communities, that someone is looking out for them. That is what the settlement opportunities give to our various agencies.

This would allow the continued work, rather than the taking away of these dollars from legitimate groups that are helping to make life better. This weakens the Federal Government's ability to settle these issues. It takes away the idea of legal aid and legal aid organizations being able to help individuals without access to legal assistance. It helps develop community banking, financial institutions. It gives housing opportunities to those who have been taken advantage of.

We know that we are in a condition of toxic air and toxic contamination in our neighborhoods, and what does the ability to settle the disaster that has been created do? It tells those offenders this is how they make the community whole. This is how they save lives.

I know it well in Fifth Ward, Texas, and the surrounding areas. For a long time, a corporate offender contaminated the soil. They were growing plants and flowers, so whole neighborhoods had an epidemic of cancer. There were whole generations that lived around this particular toxic site, but it was only the Federal Government--the EPA, in particular--under the Biden administration that came in and got a handle on this and insisted that the health needs of these individuals, the cleanup needs of these individuals, was going to be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking member, for yielding additional time.

This is not that s-word. I don't even want to say it because it means that it is something wrong. This is a good settlement opportunity that will help the public in fighting against bad actors. It will work on improving the criminal justice system, bankruptcies, the environment, civil rights laws, the Fair Housing Act, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

This is a pathway to disaster. That is what H.R. 788 is. Don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. What we want to do is help the American people and eliminate H.R. 788, which is going to take away the tools to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying we want to save lives, and that is what we want to continue to do in these dastardly conditions that have happened all over the Nation. We want the Federal Government to be standing next to Americans and to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from several organizations that oppose H.R. 788.

January 8, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 788--The Prevention of Community Restoration

Act.

Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the

so-called ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023''. The

bill prohibits settlement agreements where the United States

is a party from including certain ``donations'' to non-

federal actors, primarily non-profits, educational, and

community-based organizations.

Under existing laws, settlements from federal enforcement

actions can include payments to third parties to advance

programs that assist with recovery, benefits, and relief for

communities harmed by lawbreakers, to the extent such

payments further the objectives of the enforcement action.

H.R. 788 would cut off any payments to third parties other

than individualized restitution and other forms of direct

payment for ``actual harm.'' That restriction would handcuff

federal enforcement officials by limiting the ability of

federal enforcement officials to negotiate real relief for

harms caused to the public by illegal conduct that is the

subject of federal enforcement actions.

This bill would be a gift to lawbreakers at the expense of

families and communities suffering from injuries that cannot

be addressed by direct restitution because the bill would

prevent federal agencies from negotiating forms of relief

that would address injuries to the public that may be either

non-quantifiable or indeterminate. These forms of relief are

crucial when harm is difficult to monetize, such as damage to

the environment, the collateral consequences to communities

resulting from predatory lending by financial institutions,

or unknown health outcomes to individuals resulting from

chemical exposures in the workplace.

Under current law, the legitimacy and utility of federal

enforcement settlements that include payments to third

parties is clear, as long as such payments bear a nexus to

the prosecutorial objectives of the agency. This bill would

supplant the wisdom of officials at DOJ and federal agencies

to craft appropriate remedies.

This bill is also just another example of Congressional

overreach into executive branch decision-making. Not only

does it disregard the needs of future Administrations, but

the bill is sloppily crafted, failing to provide even a basic

definition of the ``donations'' or payments in question.

Further, the bill assumes that the government is always

going to be the party seeking to enforce the law, but this is

a fallacy. Laws are often enforced against the government,

and the government sometimes pays restitution to litigants.

There is a role for third parties to ensure that settlements

involving the government are followed and enforced.

Third parties that receive third-party payments include

nonprofits, community organizations, or trusts or foundations

that provide vital services in their communities. Members of

Congress should applaud the good work of these organizations

that serve the public good rather than vilify them.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 788.

Sincerely,

Yosef Robele & Brielle Green, Earthjustice, American

Association of Justice, American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of

Teachers, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Justice

& Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Clean Water

Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund,

Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Working

Group, Government Information Watch, Impact Fund, League of

Conservation Voters, National Association of Consumer

Advocates, National Consumers League, NRDC, Nuclear

Information and Resource Service, Public Justice, Union of

Concerned Scientists, Waterkeeper Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 788. Don't take that tool away. Help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

This bill would undermine our ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for unlawful conduct.

H.R. 788, which otherwise could be called the ``Corporate Unaccountability Act,'' is another unconscionable attempt by some extreme members on the other side of the aisle to protect corporate wrongdoers at the expense of their victims and a continuation of this majority's dangerous quest to prevent federal agencies from enforcing key protections.

H.R. 788 is yet another in a series of harmful bills that pose a direct threat to a broad range of critical protections Americans rely on in their daily lives by making it harder for federal agencies to implement, execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress.

These bills are part of the extreme MAGA Republican agenda, which seeks to render the federal government ineffective by any means necessary.

First, they proposed defunding and abolishing agencies that do not suit their radical views.

Then, they broadened their scope and put forward their Default on America Act, and later their extreme CR, which would have massively underfunded the federal government, hurting its ability to address our nation's most important priorities.

This week, the sabotage continues with legislation that puts corporate interests over communities by making it harder for agencies to hold corporations accountable for unlawful conduct and depriving victims of meaningful relief.

H.R. 788 would prohibit federal agencies from entering or enforcing legal settlement agreements that include payments to third parties in cases of corporate misconduct.

These third-party payments are important when the conduct at issue results in generalized harm, such as violations of public health, environmental or consumer protections.

Recipients are often nonprofit, educational and community-based organizations.

For example, the Department of Justice has reached settlement agreements in connection with the mortgage lending practices of major banks that required payments to legal aid organizations, community development financial institutions and housing counseling groups.

Eliminating this practice, as H.R. 788 threatens to do, would materially weaken the federal government's ability to hold bad actors accountable for their unlawful conduct in a way that effectively addresses the societal injuries they have caused.

This extreme and misguided legislation has earned opposition from both the Biden Administration and a broad coalition of groups, has zero Democratic cosponsors and only advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee by a party-line vote.

According to President Biden's Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 788 is unnecessary and ``would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.''

It should also be noted that the following groups who have come out in opposition of this irresponsible and dangerous bill:

American Association for Justice; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for Progressive Reform; Clean Water Action; Coalition for Sensible Safeguards; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Working Group; Government Information Watch; Impact Fund; League of Conservation Voters; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Consumers League; NRDC; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Public Justice; Union of Concerned Scientists; and Waterkeeper Alliance.

Let me also highlight the fact that the Administration strongly opposes the House passage of H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023, because the legislation is unnecessary and would harm the public interest.

H.R. 788 would prohibit the Federal government from entering into settlement agreements that include payments directed to appropriate parties.

This legislation seeks to address a problem that does not exist--the Federal government does not create or use ``slush funds.''

When the Federal government settles a case with those who violate the law, it seeks to hold bad actors accountable, to appropriately remedy the harm they have caused, and to prevent the recurrence of those harms.

H.R. 788 would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental, and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.

This bill would needlessly prohibit a widely respected and effective enforcement tool.

Specifically, it would block many agencies from including certain terms providing for payment to third parties in settlement agreements to which the United States is a party.

In the past, agencies have sometimes opted to work with entities that have violated regulatory requirements to agree to alternative forms of remediation.

These efforts have resulted in settlement agreements that include payments by those entities to third parties to advance programs that assist with recovery, benefits, or relief for communities harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action.

In this way, H.R. 788 would thwart federal enforcement officials' ability to negotiate appropriate relief for harm caused to the public by parties that are the subject of the enforcement action.

The criticisms of third-party settlements are misplaced: they do not unduly undermine congressional appropriation power, and they must satisfy basic requirements to be used.

The Congressional Research Service has found settlement payments to non-federal actors are permissible remedies to the extent they bear a nexus to the prosecutorial objectives of the agency.

Moreover, developing guidelines on appropriate scope, purpose, and use of third-party payments appropriately lie with the executing agency, which has the benefit of expertise and experience.

In sum, this bill is counterproductive and would undermine law enforcement goals by reducing the availability of effective remedies to address injuries to individuals and communities caused by illegal conduct. We therefore urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 947, I call up the bill (H.R. 788) to limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 788.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. This legislation seeks to repair a loophole that has been exploited by the executive branch agencies to redirect funds from Federal law enforcement settlements to outside, nongovernment entities.

Under this third-party settlement policy, agencies reach a settlement and include mandatory donation terms to externally divert these funds to third parties instead of either depositing them with the Treasury or exclusively using them to provide restitution to the victims.

Instead of depositing these settlements with the Treasury or compensating the victims, which should be the only appropriate use of these funds, agencies give sizable chunks to third parties diluting the share of the victims and even cutting out the Treasury completely.

Let me summarize this. Currently, when the Department of Justice reaches a settlement, oftentimes we don't know where it goes. More often than not, they give favorable terms to whoever they are settling with and say, if you divert XYZ dollars--in many cases millions--to a charity of our choosing, then we will call this quits, we will let you off, and you will get out of here.

What is happening, though, is, one, the people don't know where these settlements are going; two, Congress has no oversight of where this money is going and how it is spent; and, three, executive branch is going around Congress and spending dollars without going through the appropriations process. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, what you will hear from the other side today is that this is an essential tool. I would like to go back and forth and give you examples of failures of this policy, Mr. Speaker.

To be fair, this is not just something that the Biden administration is guilty of. This has happened in prior Presidential administrations. Fortunately, under President Trump's administration, this policy was stopped temporarily. Unfortunately, Congress did not end it because it was stopped.

What we should have done when President Trump was President is ended this policy then. Unfortunately, here we are. The Biden administration has reactivated it, and millions of dollars that could have gone to victims or could have gone to the U.S. Treasury for this Congress to then appropriate are now going to special groups, often liberal groups that are pet projects of this administration. It is my goal to end this policy once and for all. It is bad business for the American people, it is wrong, and it needs to be stopped no matter who the President is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me read this to you. This is from Bob LeClair, head of the Hawaii Legal Aid Foundation and executive director of the Hawaii Justice Foundation: ``I would be willing to have us build a statue [to Obama DOJ Associate Attorney General Tony West] and then we could bow down to this statue each day after we get our $200,000.''

Now, what is that about?

That is about one of these liberal groups getting money from the Justice Department in backroom settlements, and this is just one little quote that we found in an email that we were privy to, because at the end of the day, we don't even know about all these settlements.

I want to show you all this. Let's assume that everything my colleague said was true about these settlements and how great they are. Let's just assume for a second that we all agree that all these groups that are getting settlements are good groups and that this is a worthy cause and a worthy use of settlement.

Everything he just told you only relates to the 1.4 percent of where these settlements have gone because the rest of the 99 percent of settlement funds, we have no idea where they went. We don't even know what groups got them because the DOJ is making these backroom deals.

One of the problems that I have with my friends across the aisle is saying that this is a gift to big business.

Mr. Speaker, what they are going for is to preserve the status quo. The status quo is giving breaks to big businesses.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example. Bank of America settled with the government in exchange for getting to walk away from these charges. They were allowed to pay some money to some of these liberal groups to help with banking needs, et cetera. If they are not forced to admit guilt and write a check to the U.S. Treasury and say we are guilty, then we are letting them get away. That is what Democrats want to do.

Democrats want a corporate violator to be able to come forward and say, hey, I made this big donation to this great group, and don't tell anyone that we actually pled, and we didn't have to admit guilt.

So the shreds of evidence are actually much greater than just shreds. We have so many instances of waste and corruption within this process, but, unfortunately, everything I am telling you and everything the gentleman is telling you only relates to 1.4 percent of it. We don't even know how bad the other 99 percent of it is.

It is Congress' job to appropriate funds; it is the Department of Justice's job to carry out justice, and that is that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

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

It is really not always the case that the government gets a cut of these settlements. Let me give one example. A recent and shocking example involves the Epstein scandal. JPMorgan Chase entered into a $75 million settlement for its role facilitating Mr. Epstein's heinous practices.

It has been reported--of course, we don't know all the details here-- that of the $75 million settlement that they had in the Virgin Islands, $30 million went to charity--we don't know which ones--$25 million went to enhance Virgin Islands infrastructure--I am sure that was all appropriately spent--and $20 million went to attorneys' fees. None of it went to the U.S. Treasury. We now have reports of another settlement that they are working on with the Justice Department. We don't know where that went.

Again, I will bring you back to this graphic I have. Of all the settlement funds, no one in this Chamber, no one in this building, no Member of Congress knows where 98.6 percent of that money went.

Whatever you are hearing about how great these settlement slush funds are by the other side, they are only talking about what they think they know of the 1.4 percent, and what they think they know is what they are told because there is no accountability for these funds.

Unlike Federal funds, which Congress should be appropriating, where we hold organizations accountable--if an entity is receiving Federal dollars, they have to account for it--when these settlement slush funds go out to whatever organization they go to, we don't have any idea how they are being spent. No Member of Congress has any control over that money.

Mr. Nadler is right, it doesn't belong to the Federal Government, but when it is deposited into the Treasury instead of given to some aid group or whatever alleged great cause that the Justice Department is telling us exists, when it is deposited into the Treasury, then Congress gets to appropriate it because it is the people's money to handle as they see fit.

First of all, victims should be given restitution, not some slush fund that claims to do right by victims. Secondly, after the victims, the money, if we want to do right, if we want to go enhance the soils after a disaster in Congresswoman Jackson's district, that is something that the executive branch should oversee with Federal dollars that this body appropriates. That is not something that we should outsource to some group at the direction of the executive branch.

I share my colleague's concerns about victims. I am disappointed that the other side would stand up for these big businesses that are actually getting great deals, unfair deals where they get to write some slush fund check to some group that we have no way of showing any kind of accountability over. These big businesses are walking away. It is shocking to me that the other side is standing up for a process that actually lets big offenders walk away with a sweet deal and a good little PR press release. It is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and oppose this practice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

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

Before I close, I will be nice and give my friends across the aisle a little gift. I realize they think all these are great, so for the sake of being bipartisan, I am going to give an example of a bad actor that was a Republican with respect to these slush funds.

Back in 2005, then-United States Attorney Chris Christie required the pharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb to donate to his law school alma mater, Seton Hall University. In exchange for not charging the drug-making giant with securities fraud, Christie's office would require it to fund a professorship at Seton Hall University Law School, Christie's alma mater.

Do we really think that is good policy?

It doesn't matter who is in the White House, what party is controlling the executive branch, this is a wrong policy. I hope this bill passes.

My colleague did say it is dead in the Senate. Let's just assume it is dead in the Senate. I pledge here before this entire body that if we have a Republican President someday, I will carry this bill forward, and I am willing to bet that someone across the aisle will join me because they won't like the conservative, far-right groups that a

Republican Justice Department is diverting slush funds to.

I hope that my colleagues will get on board now. If this bill should not make it to the President's desk, I will be right back here in a year, God willing, if a Republican is President, and I hope my colleagues will join me then.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is really bad business for the American people. These settlement slush funds are wrong no matter who is in power and, frankly, victims are being overlooked. Victims should be made whole, and any other kind of settlement the government wants to work out with wrongdoers should be a fine to the United States Treasury because whatever good cause we may agree or disagree about for restitution for larger groups of victims, perhaps, that is something this Congress should decide through the appropriations process.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in stopping this practice. We have seen abuses all the way from the Bush administration to the present, and it needs to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 788, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you would think that for the very first week back of the new year, House Republicans would try to correct course and fix their failing majority.

You would think that after presiding over one of the most unproductive, ineffective, incompetent sessions of Congress in history, certainly since I have been here, that Republicans would use the new year as a fresh start to reset their priorities and to actually work with Democrats to get stuff done.

You would think that they would bring to the floor some big, important piece of legislation to follow through on their promises, or, I don't know, a bill to stop the government shutdown that is right around the corner.

You would think all of that, but you would be wrong.

Today, we are here for the first meeting of 2024 to consider more junk, more filler, more nonsense messaging bills that do nothing to help everyday people--bills that seek to help their billionaire friends and corporate sponsors.

First is H.R. 788, the so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. This bill stems from a fruitless Republican-led investigation based on meritless allegations of political bias when the Obama administration's Justice Department held big banks accountable for their predatory lending practices.

After a full year in the majority, Republicans still have no new ideas or real agenda to help the American public, so they want to pass off this solution in search of a problem from 10 years ago as some big, important new bill.

It is not big, it is not new, and it is definitely not important. It is a waste of our time.

Then we have S.J. Res. 38. This joint resolution is House Republicans' attempt to weaken President Biden's Buy America requirements, allowing Federal dollars to be spent on chargers made in competitor countries like the People's Republic of China. While Democrats and President Biden work to bring jobs back from China, Republicans are eager to do the bidding of billionaire corporations and ship jobs overseas to China.

Now let that sink in.

Finally, is H.J. Res. 98, a resolution that blatantly attacks workers. This bill would weaken their ability to organize and collectively bargain. These three bills have one thing in common, Mr. Speaker: They will not become law. They are going nowhere, and they are a waste of our time.

The way this place is being run is just so absurd. It is pathetic.

We are facing a partial government shutdown by the end of next week. The extreme MAGA Freedom Caucus is once again eager to shut it down.

Now maybe they think a shutdown will help crash the economy, like Donald Trump has said he wants. The leader of the Republican Party spent the week praying for the economy to collapse because he thinks it will help him win the election in November. Imagine that.

Mr. Speaker, that really illustrates the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

We want America to succeed, no matter who is in charge, because we love this country and we put people over politics. Republicans led by Trump are cheering for America to fail and for everyone to suffer because they think it will help them politically.

What a sick, twisted, messed up ideology. They are literally cheering for America to fail. I guess they think that maybe if they shut down the government that that will help.

I heard that the current Speaker was on the telephone with Donald Trump basically begging him to support the deal to fund the government, because let's be honest, that is who run this place: Donald Trump and the MAGA extremists who worship him.

That is the guy, by the way, whose lawyers argued in court yesterday that he can legally assassinate any of us and he can't be held accountable because the President is above the law.

I mean, what the hell is wrong with these people? Not a peep, not a whisper from any of my Republican colleagues. Not a single one of them who is willing to stand up and display some courage and say that the former President should not be above the rule of law.

We may be back, Mr. Speaker, and it may be a new year, but it is clear it is the same old Republican majority trying to distract from their own disarray and division and doing the bidding of Donald Trump instead of working for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about these filler bills all day, but the fact of the matter is they are going nowhere. We are wasting our time doing this.

We should be focused on making sure that Republicans don't shut the government down beginning at the end of next week.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that unambiguously states that the people's House will keep its promise to the American workers and senior citizens. We will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations, two important programs that my Republican friends are constantly attacking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentlewoman that one of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is the Democrats have historically been and continue to be on the side of workers and on behalf of small businesses in trying to bring as

many jobs back from places like China as possible, and we would be doing that no matter who is in charge in the White House because we put people above politics.

I contrast that with my friends on the other side of the aisle who seem to be cheering for America to fail and who work overtime to try to demean our workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article that appeared in The New York Times titled: ``Trump says he hopes any economic crash happens in 2024 so he isn't blamed.''

Mr. Speaker, let that sink in. The leader of the Republican Party, the person whom they are all falling over each other to try to support, is cheering for our economy to crash because it might help him politically.

It is not about the American people, it is not about workers, and it is not about businesses. It is about him.

What happened to the Republican Party?

The obsession with Trump and all of this is not only disappointing, but it is scary. Again, I will go back to the way I began this debate. The legislation we are considering today is three nothing burgers. None of these bills are going to become law. They are just filler. They are an excuse for us to be able to meet when what we should be doing is making sure that the government remains open and that it doesn't shut down at the end of next week.

Quite frankly, that business should have been done last year, but Republicans continue to fight amongst themselves and can't seem to be able to get anything done. Again, this is the most unproductive and useless Congress, I think, in history.

So, again, I would just simply say that we all need to figure out a way to pass legislation that will not adversely impact our economy and to find areas of common ground where we can actually get stuff done, but this is not what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, this has been the most incompetent, ineffective, and unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America. The fact that we are here considering these nonsense, do- nothing bills is just the latest example.

This Republican majority has been a failure and a total embarrassment. I could spend all day comparing our record with theirs. Republicans have had pathetically few bills of substance enacted into law, and on must-pass legislation, every single time it has been Democrats who have had to step up to give Republicans the votes that they needed to get things across the finish line. The gentlewoman can't rebut that because there is nothing to rebut. Republicans have done nothing of importance. I don't even know why they want to be in charge, quite frankly, since they have wasted away their time in the majority.

It is not just me saying that. It is them. Congressman Chip Roy who sits on the Rules Committee said: ``I want

my Republican colleagues to give me one thing, one thing, that I can go campaign on and say we did. One. Anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done. . . . ''

More recently, Congressman Andy Biggs said: ``We have nothing to go out there and campaign on. . . . It is embarrassing.''

Congresswoman Debbie Lesko said: ``We can't get anything done around here. It is very frustrating.''

What do Republicans say when they go home and voters ask: What have you done? What have you done?

What do you tell them?

What do you say to somebody who asks: Why are you more concerned about Hunter Biden than about our constituents?

You people need to touch the grass, get a grip, and get some help. Republicans have turned this place into one big SNL skit, except this isn't funny. We have serious business to get done around here, and they are just openly admitting that they cannot govern.

They have no new ideas or problems that they want to solve. Their whole platform is built around using division and anger to distract from the unmitigated disaster that is this Republican majority. The only hope around this place is that it is an election year and their gross incompetence will probably lose them the House come November.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do better, and there needs to be more urgency in this Chamber about making sure that the government doesn't shut down next week.

The one job, that no matter who is in charge has, is to make sure that the lights stay on here, that we don't stop the functioning of Government, and that we don't turn our backs on the American people.

Yet, we are getting perilously close to that moment when there could be a shutdown. It is disgraceful that we are here debating these filler bills that are going nowhere and that we are not working on real business that will help real people in this country and help pave the way for a better future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 947, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 98, a joint resolution related to a rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to the ``Standard for Determining

Joint Employer Status.'' H.J. Res. 98 would be considered under a closed rule, and it also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 38, a joint resolution nullifying the final rule of the Federal Highway Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers.'' It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or their designees, and provides for one motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

Beginning with H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, Mr. Speaker, we have picked up right where we left off in the first session of the 118th Congress, stopping this administration from overstepping.

During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice went about ending the practice of allowing these third-party settlement agreements. Because the focus of the Justice Department should be delivering justice and doing so under equal application of the law, the Justice Department should not be picking winners and losers. The DOJ should not be in the business of choosing parties far removed from the taxpayer and not directly related to the case at hand to be benefiting from a settlement.

Sadly, from the very onset of the Biden Presidency, this administration has been laser focused on undoing the progress of the previous administration. This administration has consistently and simultaneously overstepped their authority in rulemaking and underdelivered for the American people. That is why we are here.

Following the President's day-one directive to review reinstating Obama-era policies, the Biden administration began rescinding Trump-era policies.

I think most Americans would agree that the Federal Government should not be requiring settling parties to make donations to unrelated third parties.

I think most Americans would be shocked that these settlement payments don't go to the U.S. Treasury but to liberal wish-list recipients.

Justice is not best served by this practice and it is why the Trump administration ended the process.

Just as important, ending this practice ensures accountability from the government by preventing those in power from rewarding political allies, as well as protecting this body's constitutional responsibilities.

We have seen this practice used to push funds to far-left organizations that use the money to support out-of-touch or woke ideologies. We should put an end to this egregious practice by the Biden administration.

Moving on to the workforce. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am glad to see consideration of H.J. Res. 98, of which I am an original cosponsor.

This legislation is meant to protect small businesses, particularly franchisees from the Biden administration's assault.

This resolution is meant to preserve the job opportunities these leaders create and to protect their freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. It also preserves choice and flexibility for prospective employees. This joint resolution will ensure a predictable and rational legal standard for what qualifies as a joint employer.

For an administration that can't seem to put far-left ideology aside long enough to get our economy on track, I suppose this rule fits in with a larger pattern of stifling economic growth and driving the cost of doing business even higher.

We should be taking up policies that empower employers, not finding ways to make it more difficult to do business in America.

Finally, on to S.J. Res. 38. Similarly, and it seems there is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution fights back against the Biden administration's policies that hurt American manufacturers in favor of the Communist Party of China.

S.J. Res. 38 will ensure Buy America requirements are applied and that this misguided Biden rule does not strengthen China over American companies.

We understand the administration wants to force electric vehicles on the American people, and that in order to make these chargers less expensive and to meet their unrealistic green goals, they want to rely on Chinese manufacturers, but we cannot let those political objectives hurt our own American manufacturing while strengthening China at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, as we all have said and highlighted before on the floor, we know the Biden administration's priority is to pour billions into green energy and clean cars. By rushing to reach arbitrary green and climate agendas, the United States is more likely to solidify China's control of our energy future rather than save the planet.

Mr. Speaker, we must be strengthening our American manufacturers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S.J. Res. 38 as the Senate, including Senate Democrats, have already done.

If the President really wants to veto this bill, despite his administration's flawed approach, then we should give him that opportunity.

I look forward to consideration of all of these three pieces of legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, these arguments merely are misdirection. The executive branch has the power under the Constitution to enforce the laws.

When wrongdoers violate Federal law, any settlement with the government should be focused on three things: compensating victims, redressing harm, and punishing or deterring unlawful conduct.

Settlement agreements that require donations to outside parties do not accomplish those goals. Required donations do not compensate victims, as the funds go to outside third parties not involved in the litigation, and they do not punish and deter unlawful conduct, particularly as settling parties can reduce their fines from $2 to $1 for each dollar donated.

Moving on to criticisms against H.J. Res. 98 about franchisees. It is a hysterical argument that broadly misses the mark.

Employees of franchisees are still entitled to protection under the National Labor Relations Act. They are still able to organize labor unions if they so choose. Franchisees are subject to collective bargaining laws, worker safety laws, fair wage laws, and franchisors, just as other large companies are.

One of the concerns that we have is that there will be disastrous consequences under this rule. I just find that is not the case. We are promoting small business owners and franchisees above these woke policies that harm the American employer and the American worker.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I had one word to describe what I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the administration, it would be gaslighting.

My colleagues claim that we don't want to help everyday Americans. My colleagues claim that we are offshoring American jobs when the very bills we are considering here today are trying to fight against doing precisely that.

They claim that we are trying to hurt businessowners.

We are trying to help businessowners by giving them more flexibility to engage in employee relationships as they see fit. We are trying to bring American jobs back by supporting our American manufacturers over Chinese manufacturers. We are trying to compensate victims over woke ideological groups.

It is more gaslighting from our colleagues on the left. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that and will join us in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with Republicans being in the majority, one major accomplishment is that we have stopped a lot of bad things potentially from happening that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle might wish to push forward.

We have before us the opportunity to move legislation here that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on overreach of the bureaucratic state or protecting job creators. The choice before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

We must be taking actions that improve this economy and fight inflation, but, again and again, we see this administration making it harder and not easier to do business in America. It defies logic.

Apparently, there is no cost too high for this administration or my Democratic colleagues when it comes to this pursuit, not even the fact that China stands to benefit from one of these rules and the American manufacturer stands to lose. The American people know better.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 788, the so-called Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

This harmful legislation would prevent the Justice Department from negotiating settlements to include payments to third parties, primarily nonprofits and community-based organizations, that are best positioned to remedy harms to society at large that were caused by a corporate wrongdoer's violation of Federal environmental, labor, consumer, and financial protections.

This bill is nothing short of a gift to large corporations that would leave victims of their misconduct out in the cold.

No credible facts justify H.R. 788. This bill is based on the false premise that the Justice Department uses these types of settlements as illegitimate favors for an administration's political allies, with the bill's supporters describing such settlements as politically motivated slush funds.

This is an outlandish attack on a perfectly legal and constitutional type of remedy and is an argument that both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have thoroughly debunked.

Yet, House Republicans have spent countless hours and taxpayer dollars over several Congresses, going back at least a decade, chasing the conspiracy theory that the Justice Department is attempting to fund liberal activist groups and causes through negotiated settlements.

This included a multiyear investigation of the settlements that the Justice Department entered into with several big banks following the 2008 financial crisis, banks whose greedy appetite for mortgage-backed securities led to predatory lending practices that ultimately left millions of homeowners facing foreclosure. The big banks turned a blind eye to these practices, while they packaged mortgages that they knew were of questionable value as securities and sold them to individual and institutional investors alike.

Although the big banks' illegal conduct led directly to the 2008 financial crisis, it was difficult, if not impossible, for individual borrowers or homeowners to hold them legally accountable for the harms they suffered from the bank's near implosion of the Nation's financial system.

In response, roughly 1 percent--a tiny fraction--of the settlement monies in suits brought by the government ultimately went to third- party organizations specializing in aiding private homeowners to obtain mortgage relief or other related community services--a perfectly reasonable way to help remedy the harm caused by these large financial institutions' irresponsible behavior.

Unsurprisingly, the House Republican investigation into these settlements produced not one shred of credible evidence to support their allegations that this represented some sort of improper action--a common result when it comes to the majority's oversight priorities it seems.

Nonetheless, the majority seeks to enact H.R. 788, a bill that purports to address a problem that does not exist while its proposed solution would create real negative consequences for the American public.

Were Congress to pass H.R. 788, it would reward corporate lawbreakers and further victimize the families and communities suffering from the consequences of corporate misconduct, including injuries from civil rights violations, environmental justice harms, or harms caused by fraudulent lending practices.

During the Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, my colleagues on the other side began to argue that these settlements are, in fact, a sweet deal for corporate lawbreakers at the expense of the taxpayer. Nothing could be further from reality.

First, let us not lose sight of the fact that the majority of settlement funds go to the U.S. Treasury.

Second, these settlements enable Federal agencies to efficiently resolve enforcement actions. In many of the kinds of cases from which these types of settlements arise, litigation is complex, expensive, and time consuming. It could take the government years to hold wrongdoers accountable if they are unable to reach a settlement.

Justice delayed is justice denied. These settlements save the taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation costs, boosting the value of the settlements to the U.S. Treasury beyond the listed dollar figure, while at the same time providing more immediate relief for victims of corporate lawbreaking.

H.R. 788 is simply a tired attempt by the majority to paint a constitutional veneer upon their unpopular antiregulatory agenda, which includes enacting legislation that will undermine critical financial, environmental,

public health, and safety protections for the American public.

This antiregulatory bill is a solution in search of a problem, designed to serve deep-pocketed corporate interests at the American people's expense.

It is a shame that House Republicans have chosen this unjustified and harmful bill as one of their first measures to bring to the floor in this new year. We could have started the new year by considering bipartisan legislation to address a real problem. At the same markup where the Judiciary Committee considered this bill, we also considered legislation that would have addressed bipartisan concerns about Federal civil asset forfeiture laws. That bill passed the committee by a 26-0 vote in favor, and I have no doubt we would have enjoyed strong bipartisan support on the floor.

Be that as it may, here we are, once again, at the precipice of a possible government shutdown, and House Republicans have chosen instead to waste time on H.R. 788, recycling an unnecessary bill that has no chance of passage in the Senate at a time when the House should be working expeditiously to ensure that the government stays open.

In short, rather than considering ill-conceived and harmful legislation, we ought to be devoting this first legislative week of the new year focused on serving the actual needs of the American people, which is the basic job that we were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 788, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Wyoming are simply wrong as they describe the situation.

In all of these settlements, the Federal Government is given money, the bulk of the money. It doesn't go to a third-party group. A small fraction then goes to a small group to help make the victims of the fraud or the malfeasance somewhat whole, but the Federal Government gets the bulk of the funds in the first place.

It is a two-part payout. The Federal Government gets most of the funds, and then a third party helps some of the victims get a little part of the funds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Foushee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

My Republican friends seem to be under a misconception about the bill. They keep saying that it unconstitutionally removes money from the Treasury without appropriation. It does no such thing. It removes not a dime from the Treasury. None of this money is the government's money to start with.

The government sues some group or company for malefaction, for damaging people. A settlement is reached. Under the terms of that settlement, the bulk of the money goes to the Treasury, and there it stays. A small proportion of that money goes to an organization that attempts to make somewhat whole the victims of the corporate malfeasance that caused the lawsuit in the first place, but no money is removed from the Treasury. On the contrary, money is placed into the Treasury, money from the corporate malefactor. Some money from the corporate malefactor, a small proportion, goes to an organization that tries to help make not whole but a little better the victims of the malefaction by the corporation in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I reiterate that H.R. 788 is a solution in search of a problem that if enacted would seriously hamstring the ability of Federal agencies to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable to the American public.

Given its potentially broad impact, H.R. 788 is opposed by a wide range of environmental, civil justice, labor, and consumer advocacy groups, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the American Association for Justice, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National Consumers League.

If the underlying practice, as my friends on the other side of the aisle say, were really such a gift to corporations, why has the Chamber of Commerce come out in favor of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 788, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons I have stated here, this is a terrible bill. This amendment makes it no worse. Therefore, I don't oppose it.

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