Providing for Consideration of H.R. Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 843

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5063) to limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and also provides a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule makes in order 7 of the 11 amendments submitted, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. Subcommittee hearings were held on both H.R. 5063 and on the topic of the Department of Justice's mortgage lending settlements with major lending banks. In May of this year, H.R. 5063 was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee after the consideration of several amendments. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act went through regular order and enjoyed thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level.

H.R. 5063 is supported by the Institute for Legal Reform, Americans for Limited Government, and Americans for Tax Reform because it increases accountability for how settlement funds are spent and it helps to restore the balance of power between the branches of government.

The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act was introduced after the nearly 20-month investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was systematically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to activist groups. This bill will help address that problem.

The power of the purse is one of Congress' greatest tools to rein in the executive branch and exercise oversight. It is no surprise, then, that this administration would want to find a way around that oversight and grow its authority. In fact, in the last 2 years alone, the Department of Justice has funneled non-victim third-party groups as much as $880 million.

The Department of Justice does this by collecting money from parties who have broken the law and then use that money to create a slush fund, rather than sending the money to the victims of the illicit activity. The Department of Justice allows the ``donations''--if that is what they are called--required under the settlements to count as a double credit against defendants' payment obligations. Interestingly, credit for direct relief to consumers is only counted as dollar for dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on directing these funds to non-victim third-party groups.

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, well within what they are supposed to do. Then the Department of Justice said that banks, or other parties it has settled with, could meet some of their settlement obligations by making donations to certain groups. The money goes to these groups partially under the guise that those groups would provide services to the aggrieved parties. In reality, this practice directs funds away from victims and allows the Department of Justice to steer money to non-victim third-party groups, usually administration friendly, politically motivated organizations.

Additionally, the parties that receive these funds, these non-victim third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case, they don't represent the victims, and aren't subject to congressional oversight for the funds they receive. Even if most of these groups weren't activist groups, this would be a concerning scenario.

The donations to third-party groups allow the Department of Justice to funnel money to friendly parties outside of the appropriations process and outside congressional approval. Many of these third-party groups are unquestionably political and certainly wouldn't be considered nonpartisan by mutual observers. In fact, the mortgage settlement cases, groups like the National Council of La Raza received more than $1 million in Department of Housing and Urban Development grants under the settlements.

I don't know about you, but I think that when DOJ requires a settlement, the funds should go back to the victims involved in the case, including victims back home in northeast Georgia. And if the victims cannot be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified, then the settlement funds should go on to the Treasury so that Congress can appropriately decide how to use them.

I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit special interests and politically friendly third-party organizations, but that is exactly what the administration has been doing. The administration is trying to usurp the power of the purse through these settlement slush funds and has only gotten more confident that they can get away with it.

Maybe even more troubling, despite repeated requests for more information, the Department of Justice is refusing to provide it. What little information has been provided indicates that groups that stood to gain from the mandatory donations actually lobbied DOJ to include them in settlements.

Mr. Speaker, listen to what that says. Actually, one of the things that we have gained from this is the fact that the groups that stood to gain from these ``mandatory'' donations were lobbying DOJ to get the money--not a party to the case, not a party to the victims, but wanting their cut of the pie.

In at least one case, the Department of Justice restored funding to a program that Congress specifically cut. Congress cut funding in half for a Housing and Urban Development program known as the Housing Counseling Assistance Program. But after grant recipients of this program expressed their displeasure at the cuts, they received a helping hand from who else--the Department of Justice.

The DOJ mortgage settlements ensured that, despite congressional action to the contrary, eliminating funding for these groups would be restored. DOJ didn't just stop at circumventing Congress' funding authority in that case; instead, they directly violated the congressional intent. Again, a congressional oversight overstep misused because the agency decided it knew better than the elected representatives of the people.

It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and the separation of powers is restored. At a Judiciary hearing in May on this bill, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Larkin testified that ``Congress identifies precisely who may receive Federal funds.''

That is what we do. I agree with him, but the Department of Justice's settlement process in recent years undercuts that critical function of the separation of powers. That is why we have to act and why the underlying bill is so important.

The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prohibits settlement terms that require donations to non-victim third parties. Importantly, the bill clarifies that payments that provide restitution for harm caused are not donations.

Additionally, H.R. 5063 restores the separation of powers by establishing that settlement funds remaining after victims have been compensated are overseen by Congress. Rather than directing money outside the appropriations process, the bill returns the funds to the Treasury to remediate damages after victims have been taken care of.

I urge everyone here today to think about their constituents who one day may be victims looking for restitution. I want to go home and tell those hardworking Georgians that I represent that I am making sure they are put first, not special interests. I hope that others will share that feeling by supporting the rule and the underlying bill.

Let me just clarify, Mr. Speaker, why we are here. This is a rule for H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. One clarification as to what was just mentioned is that this bill does not allow any company to get off the hook. They are going through the process, and they are paying their fines. What we are trying to let off the hook here is the Department of Justice, which believes that it is the arbitrator of the world to their own pet projects.

Let's get back to the basics of this bill. If we want to pontificate on the world, fine, then we can pontificate on the world; but let's get back to the rule for today, for this moment, and do not tell stories that don't exist. Congress--both sides--should decide that the Department of Justice should not be having a settlement of mandatory donations to pet groups because they don't get enough funding. How about they just go get another job instead of living off settlements from others when they are not the victims?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has brought this issue up already. If the gentleman does not know this, he needs to go back, and he can see it. That is why this is a bipartisan issue. We can be together on this.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I think the interesting thing is that I have listened to him--as he said, he is on a roll--and I think we are probably in more agreement than we are disagreeing here.

I wasn't here to--in fact, you said to ``turn a blind eye.'' This is a problem, and it doesn't matter who is there. If it is a Republican, it is wrong; if it is a Democrat, it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here.

I agree with the outrage. It shouldn't happen, especially when you get into the fact that the Department of Justice is actually taking money and putting money to departments and programs that this Congress had cut funding from. That is not right. I don't care who the administration is; I don't care who the President is.

I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He makes a passionate argument. Maybe you just need to come over here and help me out. We are making the right argument here.

So the question now becomes--no matter where it comes from--and the interesting issue here is this shouldn't be taking place, no matter who is over it. The problem is, and what I would love to ask is: Where has the Department of Justice been for the last 7 years on any issue, for the most part? It has been very frustrating to both sides of the aisle. On this one, I actually think we can find more agreement than we can find disagreement.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's remarks because, frankly, this is what this does. It doesn't let them off the hook. It just simply goes back to looking at these mandatory donations which, again, party is irrelevant. This is not a role for the Department of Justice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, they have been pulling at my coattails, but I think at this time they are going to hold back.

It is fairly amazing to me that we can actually find agreement, that we agree that this should not be happening. The gentleman from Massachusetts made this statement several times, and he said ``this bill is going nowhere.'' I would just ask him, Mr. Speaker, why not? If we want to find agreement and move forward, then, why not?

Why wouldn't a bill brought forward by this Congress that addresses a bipartisan issue of Republican and Democrat abuses to a Department of Justice settlement program, why shouldn't it move forward? Instead of saying it is a waste of time, instead of saying it is something we are just doing to get along and to not address real issues, this is a real issue. Why don't we move it forward? Instead, we will posture. We will vote ``no,'' and we will complain about what we don't want to have. Why not move it forward?

We have heard from my friends across the aisle, the ones who came, two witnesses, that we agree on this. It should not be happening. Instead, this is a big issue. In fact, I believe it is the one issue right now that is percolating not only in our Presidential elections, but in our congressional elections. It is in our Senatorial elections. It is in our State elections.

It is this understanding of the American people that right now government is not working. Government is broken, the government that they grew up going to school with. As school has started back over the last month in Georgia--my home State, Mr. Speaker, and yours--up to New York where it starts tomorrow, they go to social studies and they learn about the Founders and they learn about the Constitution and they learn about three branches of government and how Congress does the bills and the appropriating and how the executive branch carries those instructions out and how the judiciary comports that to the constitutionality of what we do.

I cannot think of a better way than to live within those Founders' framework and to say, ``Why isn't this bill going somewhere?'' instead of Congress sitting back and letting the executive branch do whatever it wants to do, however it wants to do it just because they throw a tantrum because they don't get their way.

The bill does not protect people from getting away from the law. The bill does not keep people from being prosecuted. The bill does not keep punitive damages. Just go through the long list of what they have said, the list of horribles, that this would not do. It does not. It simply says you can't stroke your pet projects with money from ``mandatory donations,'' either side, Republican or Democrat.

So tell me again, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't this bill go forward? We will have time to debate the rest. Well, why shouldn't this bill go forward? Because it hits at the very frustration of the American people right now because what they see is not what they learned in those classrooms years ago. What they see is an executive branch that does whatever it wants to do, sometimes under both parties. They see a Congress that doesn't stand up for itself.

As far as I am concerned, this Member will stand up for this institution and for the role that the Founders laid out for us. So H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, does what it says it will do, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill.

There are many things we get a chance to vote for. We can complain or we can vote. My recommendation is vote to move this forward. Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Instead of saying it ain't going anywhere, then grab a hold of the shovel and say let's try and make something work in this country.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 843 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 to respond to Zika virus. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5044. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source