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. Thats the politics that was going on. Its the politics were trying to prevent. As i said in my previous statement, the department of justice is given a number of dollars for Grant Programs, we may not always agree with how those Grant Programs are run, but we give them that. Additionally, Congress Appropriates a tremendous amount of money, much of it going to the same groups. A year and a half ago this body came together on the violence against women which has and will continue to do good work in exactly the area people are talking about. But this is the reason we have legislation before us today. Weve had political activity thats 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, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Conyers we have no further people to recognize, im prepare t. D. To make my Closing Remarks now. Prepared to make my Closing Remarks now. Mr. Issa im repair prepared to let you make your Closing Remarks. The speaker pro tempore the the chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Conyers i note that a Broad Coalition of Public Interest organizations, including public citizen, americans for financial reform, the National Urban league, among others, strongly oppose h. R. 732. They warn, and i quote, that this measure would undermine Law Enforcement goals by reducing the vailability of suitable remedies to address these kinds of injuries to the public caused by illegal conduct. This bill is in effect a gift to lawbreakers that comes at the expense of families and communities impacted by injuries that cannot be addressed by direct restitution. So i have to ask, why are we giving a gift to lawbreakers in the guise of h. R. 732 . If you value, as i do, upholding the rule of law, then youll join me and many others in posing this seriously flawed measure and i thankern thats participated in this discussion and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california. Mr. Issa thank you, mr. Speaker. In closing, i dont think theres any im sorry, mr. Chairman. In closing, i dont believe theres any question at all but that the minority has missed the point. We intend, 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, rightfully, mr. Prass cell, rightfully said we shouldnt have money paid in lieu of criminal prosecution. It should be both. I agree with him. What were dealing with here is a recognition that under republican and democratic administrations, we have had mandatory donations that in fact went to charity, you will, or organizations of the choice of those political entities. The fact is, what were doing is reining in, reining in wrongdoing that is actual and has been observed. Nothing more. One one of the challenges we face every day, one of the reasons im imploring both sides to come together on this vote, one of the challenges we face is shouch 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, the middle. We are scrutenidse, but when we scrutinize the department of justices action, according to my colleagues, under republicans theres been clear wrongdoing. According to the documents 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, its 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 coast guard foundation. It cant continue to happen. We have to have the money thats in settlements, flow to the victims or flow to the treasury. With that, i urge passage of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. The amendments recommended by the jew dish printed in the bill shall be continued adopted. No further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 115363. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debated for the time specified in the report equally divide and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. It is now nrder it is now order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 115363. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . I was an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 1 printed in house report 115363, offered by mr. Goodlatte of virginia. The chair pursuant to the rule, the gentleman in virginia, mr. Goodlatte and a member opposed each will control five minute thsms echair recognize this is egentleman from virginia. Mr. Goodlatte i yield myself such time as i may consume. The stop settlement slush funds act of 2017 prohibits settlements that provide for payments to nonvictim third parties. But what happens to leftover money if the settlement doesnt specifically provide for its disposition . It turns out that this situation is ripe for abuse. In 2013 a shocking New York Times expose revealed that the Obama Administration bilked over 1 billion from the taxpayer funded Judgment Fund and handed it to special interests. The case called keeps eagle concerned claims against the department of agriculture. The settlement, spear hed by then assistant attorney general anthony west, vastly overstated the number of claims against the government. One result was a 60 million windfall for the plaintiffs lawyer who was on president obamas Transition Team the year before. The other result was 380 million in funds left over. This was taxpayer money but instead of demanding it back, the department of justice agreed to direct it to nonvictim third parties to be selected by the same plaintiffs lawyer and member of president obamas Transition Team. This quite rightly troubled the presiding judge. My amendment would close this loophole by requiring that money left over after all victims have been compensated must be returned to wherever it came from. This amendment also clarifies that permit red medial payments must go to victims who suffered the injuries on which plaintiffs claims are based thisvents situations prevents situations in which a payment is classified as remedial but is directed to an intermediary. The abufse power i jut lined today in the settlement context are truly disturbing. This is our opportunity to stop the abuse. We should be as comprehensive as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise . Mr. Conyers i rise in opposition to the amendment. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Conyers members of the house, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. To begin with, it would prohibit distributions pursuant to which they attempt to find the next best use of funds that remain after Class Action Settlement has been finally administered. Its especially important in actions where the recovery is so small for an individual class member that he or she may not bostonner to make a claim or where distribution is not practical. For example, courts under this may permit unclaimed Settlement Funds to provide indirect compensation to the class such as future Price Reductions or remediation efforts. As a result of this amendment, however, the unclaimed Settlement Funds would be returned to the very entities that caused the injury in the first place. Simply put this amendment would benefit the wrong doe doers to the detriment of the victims they harmed. In addition, this amendment would restrict the amount of compensation a victim could receive under a Settlement Agreement to the extent the vim was actually harmed by the wrongdoer. The amendment completely ignores the pragmatic realities of systemic hamples such as widespread, longterm, or latent environmental damage like lead contaminated public water drinking systems think of flint, michigan. Where the extent of a victims exposure to such harms may be difficult and perhaps even impossible to quanltfi. In a letter opposing this amendment a group of Public Interest organizations, including earth justice, public citizen, alliance for justice, the center for justice and democracy, and the american it ciation for justice said is terrible Public Policy because wrong doers would benefit from a windfall for cheating an harming consumers. Undoing accountability or deterrence function of the entire settlement. This is absolutely the wrong result. So i urge that this amendment be rejected. I thank the chair. The chair the gentleman yields. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, i dont have any additional speakers on this amendment, i am prepared to close. I reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan. Mr. Conyers i yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115363. For what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition . I seek recognition because i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115363, offered by mr. Cohen of tennessee. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 577, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Cohen, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. Mr. Cohen thank you, sir. The reason i have this amendment is because i dont think the bill hasst a good bill and shouldnt affect Settlement Agreements on the basis of race, religion or National Origin or division. Rotected im surprised it was made in order, ill be even more surprised if it passes. But it doesnt matter, it wont go anywhere in the senate. What with do in the judiciary never go anywhere senate. Were the only committee that can deal with issues in the white house, with the russia investigation, with the firing of james comey, with emoluments clause violations. The senate and house intelligence committees have investigations. And so does the Senate Judiciary committee. Only our committee has done absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. Today senator jeff flake a today, senator jeff flake, a man of moral recollect tude, said he cannot continue to serve in the senate because to be quiet on issues in relations to decency and truth and other matters would involve complicitity. He couldnt remain complicit. By our committee not taking any action concerning activities of the white house we are complicit. We should be the most responsible committee in the congress because were the peoples house and we have the juju dishary, the f. B. I. We have the judiciary, the f. B. I. , all within our purview and yet we have been silent. Some say because groups are doing the investigating. We dont not take up bills like this because the senate is not going to take them. We take them up all the time and throw them over there and they never come back. Im distraught with the fact that my friends, jeff flake, who is a great person i served with, is not going to run for reelection. He wasnt a knee injury republican just like bob corker is not a knee jerk republican and a lot have said many truths today whats going on in the executive branch. We are an equal branch of government. The House Judiciary Committee has that responsibility. I once again call on the chairman of the committee to hold hearings on elections, on russian interference on our elections, on threats of democracy, in violations of the emoluments clause and obstruction of justice and firing of the f. B. I. Director. The f. B. I. Is under our charge. We should have hearings. We should have hearings on emoluments. We should have hearings on all these issues and not be complicit. Being complicit is the same as being guilty. Id ask we pass the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields. Does any member seek time in opposition . Yes, mr. Chairman. I rise to claim time in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized. The amendment is unnecessary ban e it would prevent a nothing prevents a victim of discrimination from relief. This bill does not have remedial payments to third party victims who are harmed by the defendants wrong nothing. Nor does it preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases. Nothing in the bill bars the department of justice from requiring a defendant to implement Workplace Training and monitoring program. The ban on Third Party Payments merely ensures the defendant remains responsible for performing these tasks itself as not forced to outsource set sums for the work third parties who might be friendly with a given administration. Accordingly, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the alance of my time. The chair the gentleman has the only time remaining. The chair the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Ask for a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will e postponed. Its now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115363. For what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognize snigs recognition . The clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115363 offered by mr. Ohnson of georgia. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 577 the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the entleman from georgia. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise to offer an amendment to the socalled stop settlement slush funds act. Its not a slush fund at all. Its a fund that goes to compensate people who are harmed due to the wrongdoing of mostly large multinational orporations. And so its misnamed. There is no slush fund here this is an unwise and odious bill and what my amendment would do would be to exempt cases concerning manipulations f emissions standards from the harshness of this bill. So in other words, the federal government through the e. P. A. Could institute a lawsuit against a firm or company, large multinational Foreign Company like volkswagen, as it did a couple years ago, and obtain benefits that would accrue to not just the direct recipients of the harm from volkswagen but also to society at large that was harmed by volkswagens fraudulent activity. You see, what happened was volkswagen sold about 590,000 dieselpowered vehicles here in the United States. Hese vehicles were supposed to they were supposed to conform with u. S. Law insofar as the emissions are concerned and what volkswagen did was put in a mechanism in the cars that ould defeat the ability of the regulators who wanted to check to find out whether or not the vehicles complied with emissions standard. So volkswagen cheated. They sold 590,000, almost 600,000 vehicles on americas roads that were unknowingly polluting the very air that all of us breathe so we all suffered a harm as a result of volkswagens fraud but there ere 590,000 Vehicle Owners who had to be protected as well. So e. P. A. Sued volkswagen. Volkswagen knew they were wrong. They settled the case. It was about 15 billion. That shows you how much money they have. How much money theyre trying to protect here. With this bill. And the 15 billion was to go to compensate the egrieved Vehicle Owners as well as society at large for the harm that was done due to the fraudulent conduct. And what this legislation would do would be to cut the ability of the u. S. Government to sue a corporate wrongdoer and receive benefits that it would then put into the hands of the individuals who were harmed as well as to rectify the harm done to society. This amendment would exempt this kind of case, the volkswagen case, from the harsh restrictions of this of this legislation and so i would ask in the interest of our environmental consciousness that this body would vote in favor of this amendment and with that i will reserve the alance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . I rise to claim ti