Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt certain discrimination settlements from the bill's ban on third-party payments. But nothing in the underlying bill prevents a victim of discrimination from obtaining relief, and that is the important point.
The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016 explicitly permits remedial payments to third-party victims who are directly and proximately harmed by the defendant's wrongdoing. Nor does the bill preclude wider conduct remedies used in discrimination cases.
For example, nothing in the bill bars the Department of Justice from requiring a defendant to implement workplace training and monitoring programs. The ban on third-party payments merely ensures that the defendant remains responsible for performing these tasks itself and is not forced to outsource set sums for the work to third parties who might be friendly with a given administration.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary because it would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from violations of the Clean Air Act and other violations. But that is precisely the problem.
How best to address indirect harm is a policy question that is properly decided by the elected representatives of Congress only and not by agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
An example that highlights this is the $2.7 billion mitigation fund that the Department of Justice required in its settlement of claims against Volkswagen. That fund mitigated direct harm, which is permitted under this bill.
The problem was that, through a second fund, the Obama Justice Department required Volkswagen to spend an additional $2 billion on an administration electric vehicle initiative after Congress twice refused to appropriate funds for it. It is that subversion of Congress' power of the purse that this bill is designed to target. Nothing in this bill lets corporate polluters off the hook, and it is nonsense to say otherwise.
If direct remediation of the harm is impossible or impractical, the full penalty is still paid, but it goes to the Treasury. After that, the decision on how best to use it is left to the people's elected representatives in Congress rather than the executive branch.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time about the brilliant amendment, it is, again, not necessary.
And in response to the question, the court does not always approve every one of these; and that is the point.
The gist of this amendment and the purpose of the bill is to restore and strengthen our Article I power under the Constitution. You may not like the way Congress operates, you may not like all of the decisions that are made here, but in their infinite wisdom, this is how the Founders designed our system. It has worked very well, and it will continue to do so. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would exempt settlements providing restitution to a State, the idea presumably being that the State could then distribute money as it sees fit for generalized harm to its citizens, but nothing in this bill prevents Congress from making block grants to States to address generalized harm. Indeed, Congress regularly appropriates money to States to deal with challenges, including environmental cleanups. Examples of this include the EPA Superfund and the Brownfields grants.
This bill merely insists that decisions on when such grants are appropriate and in what amounts, that those decisions be made by accountable representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats and prosecutors.
Compensating direct victims is a job for the Justice Department.
Broader projects are a policy question that should be decided by Congress.
Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt settlements resolving allegations of predatory or fraudulent conduct involving residential mortgage-backed securities, as we have heard.
Ironically, it creates an exception in the very situation in which the abuses we highlighted earlier arose.
The key point here is that nothing in the underlying bill prevents direct victims of mortgage fraud from obtaining relief.
The concern of this amendment is that there may be cases of generalized harm to communities that cannot be addressed by restitution, but this misses the fundamental point.
The Department of Justice has authority to obtain redress for victims. Federal law defines victims to be those ``directly and proximately harmed'' by the defendant's acts.
Once those victims have been compensated, deciding whether additional moneys, other than for penalties, should be allocated to address related problems becomes a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
Indeed, Congress already funds homeowner assistance programs through the annual appropriations process, balancing it against competing priorities.
As we have repeated throughout this debate, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch.
This is true, by the way, no matter which party is in the White House.
This amendment would weaken that essential congressional power, and, for that reason, we urge Members to oppose it on institutional grounds.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chair, this amendment undercuts Congress' power. It is another attempt to do so, and it should be opposed for that reason.
It would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from lead in drinking water. It is a terrible problem. The amendment is forced to focus on indirect harm because nothing in the bill prevents remediation of direct harm.
But settlement provisions addressing indirect harm are precisely why this bill is needed. The bill's guiding principle is that once direct victims have been compensated, deciding the best use of additional funds to address related problems--whether that is addressing indirect harms or otherwise--is, again, a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors.
We have proven the point. Last year, Congress actually acted on this.
Congress appropriated $120 million to address drinking water problems in Flint, Michigan. If there is further need, Congress can make additional appropriations. The Department of Justice should not be permitted to augment those funding decisions entirely outside of the congressional appropriations and oversight processes because they are important to protect and preserve.
Again, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch, and we cannot afford to weaken that essential congressional power.
Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment on institutional grounds, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I would just respond by saying that no tragedy, however sad and however large, justifies us deviating from our Constitution, from the way the Founders set up this system and the way that this body operates. There is a reason that these responsibilities were given to us as Members of Congress. Each of us has the same challenge. When there is a tragedy or a mishap or a natural disaster or anything that affects our districts, our job is to come here and convince a sufficient number of our colleagues to support those appropriations to handle those measures. The system is designed with safeguards in place. It is designed so that the interests of the entire Nation can be represented here in this Chamber. For that reason, this amendment would bypass that. It would bypass the design. It would bypass article I, and it would create a whole different way of governing. We simply can't allow that.
Mr. Chair, this is about preserving the original intent of the Constitution, preserving the power of this body. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source