tv U.S. House of Representatives 10242017 CSPAN October 24, 2017 1:59pm-4:00pm EDT
please take your conversations rom the floor. bower bower i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today in support of h.r. 3972 family office technical correction act which passed out of the house financial services committee this week with unanimous support . this legislation provides a technical clarification that makes it very apparent that family offices are considered accreditted investors. under dodd-frank a family office or a company that only has family clients is opened by the family and is not a public investment adviser can give financial advice to family members without the office
advising. family members will look out for one another. thus, this legislation for the same reason allows family offices to count as accredited investors to make private placement investments the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. . the gentleman may resume. mr. barr: thank you, mr. speaker. this legislation for the same reason allows family offices to account for accredited investors which will allow them to make private placement investments. the end result is more capital will be available for investment in businesses resulting in more jobs and greater economic opportunity for americans of all walks of life. i want to thank representative carolyn maloney and chairman hensarling for their leadership on this important legislation, and i urge my colleagues in the house to support the family office technical correction act.
mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 3972 would expand the definition of accredited investor to organizations known as family offices and their family clients. family offices manage the financial interests of wealthy families. deeming family offices and family clients to be accredited investors would allow them to more easily invest in private, unregistered security offerings. today, each family client, family member and associated employees and entities must independently meet the accredited investor definition. this would require, for example, that each individual in a family independently meet certain income or net worth thresholds.
as i understand it, this process can be cumbersome for private funds who may lose their unregistered status if they fail to appropriately verify their investors as accredited or otherwise qualified to invest in private offerings. if there's any doubt a private fund could deny a family office or family client the opportunity to invest. this bill seeks to remedy that problem by recognizing that family offices and family clients are financially sophisticated in their own thanks to an amendment by representative maloney that was unanimously accepted during the committee markup. the bill ensures these family offices and family clients have the financial wherewithal and knowledge to invest as accredited investors and typically risk -- in typically risky offerings. specifically, the bill would apply the same standards currently in place for trust so that, number one, the family
office must have more than $5 million in assets. two, the family office and family clients must not be formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered. and three, the family office and family client must be dedicated or directed, rather, by a sophisticated person. these restrictions limit the potential unintended consequences of the bill so that, for example, someone who could not otherwise meet the accredited investor test alone could not circumvent the rules by investing with another family member as, quote, family office, quote-unquote. they would also prevent estranged family members who could be up to 10 generations removed for investing as an accredited investor without receiving services by the family office. i support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time.
the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kentucky. this did pass our committee on a unanimous basis. i want to thank the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, for her leadership and for her other areas of leadership on our committee as a very senior democrat. her counsel is always important. her leadership is always important. this is indeed, as was described, mr. speaker, in many respects a technical correction that needed to take place. we need to ensure that our family offices, that those investment funds can be put to their highest and best use to help grow the economy. i was happy that the ranking member used the phrase unintended consequences because indeed, mr. speaker, from time to time there are unintended consequences of regulation. we do wish to ensure that these
family offices that otherwise meet the definition of accredited investors have the full range of investment opportunities before them. this bill will do this. again, it came out on a strong bipartisan and indeed a unanimous basis from the financial services committee. so i would urge all members of the house to adopt it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, the author of the bill, the sponsor of the bill, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3972, and i am very thankful to chairman hensarling and ranking member waters for their support and assistance on this legislation. this bill is very simple. it makes what i consider to be
a technical fix to the rules for family offices. family offices are entities that are established by wealthy families to manage their own money and to provide financial services to their family members. the original family office was created by john d. rockefeller 135 years ago, and still exists in the district that i represent. so family offices have a long and storied history in this country and have become important sources of liquidity for our markets. it's also important to note that family offices do not pose a systemic risk and did not cause any problems in the financial crisis so they don't close any safety and soundness risk to the financial system. family offices aren't regulated by the s.e.c. as investment
advisors because they don't have traditional clients or outside investors. they invest money in their funds like most investment advisors. a family office is just that, a family office managing its own family money. their clients are primarily family members and disputes between family members are better handled either internally by the family or through state courts which have laws to govern disputes between family members. prior to dodd-frank, the s.e.c. had been exempting family offices and officers from the advisors act for decades on a case-by-case basis. in dodd-frank, we codified the exemption for family offices and required the s.e.c. to write a rule formally defining
family offices. the s.e.c. finalized that rule in 2011 so family offices that meet the s.e.c.'s definition do not have to register with the s.e.c. or as investment advisors. however, a problem has now come up that we did not anticipate. we assumed that every family client or a member of the family would qualify as a sophisticated accredited investor under the s.e.c. rules. but it turns out that there are very limited circumstances in which a family client of a family office may not actually qualify as an individual accredited investor. for example, a 19 or 20-year-old member of a wealthy family may be in his or her first job after school and may not be making enough money to qualify as an accredited
investor which is over $200,000 annually. the real problem is under the rules we have now, if just one of these family client, a young person, in most cases, in a family office is not an accredited investor, then the entire family office is not considered an accredited investor and thus cannot buy any securities that are limited to accredited investors like privately issued stocks or bonds. my bill would fix this by just clarifying that all family offices and family clients are in fact accredited investors. the bill does not allow that any 19 or 20-year-old can go out on their own and buy securities. it is limited to accredited investors that can only be done through the family office. the bill also includes some
important limitations. the family office has to have at least $5 million in assets, which is the same limitation that applies to trusts in the current accredited investor rule. the family office also has to have its investments directed by a sophisticated investment professional which provides yet another layer of protection. so really this bill is a very narrowly tailored and provides what i consider to be a technical fix that will allow family offices to better serve their own family members. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: mr. speaker, i have no further requests at this
time, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3972 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. barr: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3898 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. to clerk: h.r. 3898, a bill require the secretary of the treasury to place conditions on certain accounts at united states financial institutions with respect to north korea, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: mr. speaker, i ask
unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barr: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barr: i'm pleased to sponsor h.r. 3898, the otto warmbier north korea nuclear sanctions act which imposes the most far-reaching financial sanctions ever directed as north korea. since 2006, north korea has undertaken six nuclear tests and earlier this summer, tests launched intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching united states territory. the most recent nuclear device that the country detonated on september 3 had an estimated explosive power 10 times greater than the bomb dropped as hiroshima. we must not allow the north to threaten a u.s. city with such weapons. in short, mr. speaker, this bill would impose secondary sanctions on foreign financial institutions that do business with virtually anyone that trades with north korea. in addition, h.r. 3898 would
essentially cut off pyongyang's ability to earn hard currency through north korean laborers working abroad and it would use our leverage at the i.m.f., world bank and other world financial institutions to incentivize countries to crack down on north korea's illicit activities. as many of my colleagues know, north korea is already subject to both u.s. and international sanctions, the latter deriving from u.n. security council resolutions. these sanctions have fallen short, however, for two main reasons. first, they have not given sufficient attention to north korea's enablers in third countries, especially foreign banks and middle men in china, southeast asia and other parts of the world. second, even though u.n. security council resolutions are supposed to bind u.n. members to enforce them, implementation has been weak. as the u.n. panel of experts concluded earlier this year,
member nations have been so lax that north korea retains access to the international financial system. as the trump administration has made clear, u.n. sanctions are a floor, not a ceiling, for u.s. action. h.r. 3898 embodies this principle through the use of secondary sanctions. here's how such sanctions would work, mr. speaker. the front office and middle men that north korea relies on in third countries still need banks. those banks in turn use correspondent or payable through accounts held at u.s. financial institutions to process international transactions. it's counterproductive for u.s. policy to permit foreign banks to do business in america as well as business that ultimately helps north korea. it's time for those banks to choose between aiding and abetting the north korean government or standing for peace with america and its allies. h.r. 3898 forces foreign banks to make that choice. foreign banks can either do
business benefiting north korea or business with the united states. they cannot do both. under an executive order issued in september, the president authorized the treasury department to levy sanctions on foreign banks that finance north korean trade. while this was a crucial step forward, h.r. 3898 would widen the net still further. under this legislation, congress would be codifying mandatory sanctions on foreign banks. if someone is dealing with north korea, there's nowhere to run or hide. a foreign financial institution is subject to sanctions for doing business with you even if that bank claims that it's not directly financing the trade. h.r. 3898 also covers more economic activity than any previous sanctions on north u.n. including current sanctions round. this mean this bill goes after banks dealing with petroleum, labor and any kind of investment or north korean shipping vessels. in addition, h.r. 3898 targets the technological support that
north korea needs for its activities. this is critical for the regime to get its hands on financing. . the goal is to show north korea that the path they are on has devastating costs. h.r. 3898 provides an off-ramp for north korea if the country wants sanction relief, but it is up to pyongyang to take t sanctions we'll pass today hold tremendous economic pain in store for the regime and foreign enablers. finally, mr. speaker, we're honored to dedicate this bill to the memory of otto warm beer warmbier, warmbier, a young ma traveled to north korea and whose life was cut short by the regime's brutal lith. he was a student at university of virginia virginia, my alma mater. otto held out his hand in friendship to the people of north korea, as we do.
it is pyongyang's nuclear ambitions that threaten what otto represented, a world of openness, understanding, and desire for peaceful relations between our country and north korea. it is fitting that this legislation bears otto's name and that its goals embody his spirit. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: first, allow me to say that i'm very pleaseds -- naming this by legislation after otto warmbier, we're able to honor him and let naming this his family know that we will not forget him. nor will we forget the blutal -- brutal, lethal treatment of this young, decent american student by the government of north korea. there is simply no his family k that justification or the fury with which the kim regime turned the massive power of the state on this young american man.
who is alleged to have done nothing more than take a poster from a hotel. brutality ind of going fundamental depravity of the north korean regime that will give it from being a member of the global community of nation. this is also why the rapid acceleration and the scale and range of north korea's nuclear and missile programs is so alarming. including the launch of two intercontinental ballistic missiles in july. one of which experts believe could have had the capacity to reach the continental united states. then in september the regime tested its sixth nuclear explosive device, and according to u.s. and international estimates, this thermonuclear test was significantly higher in magnitude and yield than any
previous test. this has led to a bipartisan consensus in the financial services committee that a new policy towards north korea involving a maximum pressure campaign, financial isolation is the best chance we have to resolve this situation peacefully. such a strategy must entail a dramatically greater level of pressure than north korea has faced to date. one strong enough to change kim jong il's calculus about whether he's safer or without his nuclear program. the legislation before us today, h.r. 3898, calls for just such a u.s. strategy towards north korea. and it's one that has the advantage of presenting an option other than a military first response. as many experts have called for, this legislation takes a page from the iran sanctions playbook by mandating the use of secondary sanctions which
were widely credited with forcing iran to the negotiating table. in the context of north korea, an american program of secondary sanctions wouldn't just ban u.s. companies from with north ss korea, it would also force companies, individuals, banks, and governments to make a choice. stop doing business with with n korea and its enablers, or be cut off from the global financial system. although we saw in iran context just how powerful this approach can be, when carefully fashioned as part of a broad coalition, we must remember that sanctions alone are not a strategy. sanctions are a tool and in order for them to work they must be linked to a broader strategic effort with a high level of skill in their desire and implementation and with the clear understanding of the policy goals we're trying-to-cheeve.
-- trying to achieve. according to damn zubin, who formerly served as the undersecretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, when congress adopted a series of secondary sanction measures in 2010 aimed at containing iran's nuclear program, the administration was already staffed, well resourced, and ready to immediately deploy senior officials around the world, specifically senior treasury, white house, and state department officials traveled around the world to explain the new u.s. sanctions regime and pressure government, bankers, traders, and companies to enforce these sanctions in a ough and meaningful way. today there is widespread recognition that a successful strategy to isolate and pressure north korea must not only today there is widespread
recognition that entail the aff implementation of sanctions, but also arguably and even more complex and sophisticated degree of state craft in order to coordinate with our allies. and in particular to convince china that we have shared objectives when it comes to addressing the increasing destabilizing north korea threat. it is extremely concerning, therefore, that president trump has shown virtually no capacity or willingness for the hard work necessary to secure concessions from north korea or enlist china and other key players to do their part to isolate the kim regime. in fact, president trump's reckless threats, his vow to destroy the kim regime, his name-calling, and rejection of diplomacy contradict key administration officials and leading experts. who continue to stress the importance of imposing pressure on the kim regime it also
demonstrates a commander in chief who likes to discipline and quality of leadership it takes to convince our allies -- lacks the quality of leadership it takes to scrins our allies of the north korean threat. given the high stakes objectives, the like of a policy from the executive branch and concern about u.s. credibility on the global stage, i'm pleased that on this critical issue members from both sides of the aisle were able to come together behind a concrete strategy, objective to force pyongyang into nuclear diplomacy with the goal of permanently and verifyably limiting north korea's wmd and ballistic missile programs. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. embers are advised to remember toe not engage in personalities against the president. the gentleman from kentucky.
mr. barr: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. i do rise in strong support of h.r. 3898. the otto warmbier north korea nuclear sanctions act which our committee, the financial services committee, passed on a basis.us i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, who is leading this debate today. i want to thank him for our -- for his leadership on our committee. and for this bill. i also want to thank his ranking member, ms. moore, the gentlelady from wisconsin, for her work on this bipartisan bill as well. i also think that it is a good and proper thing, mr. speaker, that this bill is named after otto warmbier. a young wife that was -- life that was tragically ended far too soon.
who in his untimely demise has become an international symbol of the crushing brutality of the north korean regime. so it is with his memory that this bill is designed. and simply put, mr. speaker, the bill before us today represents the toughest set of financial sanctions ever, ever directed against the nuclear armed north korean regime. a regime that still represents a clear and present danger to the global community. sanctions our committee is bringing to the house today target foreign financial institutions that in some way are corrected to -- connected o north korea's economic activity. activity that ultimately allows this rogue regime to both develop and proliferate activity. activity that weapons
of mass destruction. under h.r. 3898, those foreign financial institutions are going to be confronted with a choice. as my colleague from kentucky put it, they can either do business that benefits north korea or they can do business with the united states. they cannot do both. given the far-reaching impact of the sanctions, our committee does not take them lightly. they are reserved for the gravest threats to our national security and their application should be targeted at clear and achievable goals. that is why h.r. 3898 does. it cuts off virtually any path that north korea can take to generate hard curncy, yet it holds out the prospect of sanctions relief if there are verifiable limits to the regime's weapons program. as punishing as these sanctions will be, there is a way out for north korea if it chooses to take it, and that is to comply. otherwise the kim regime and its foreign enablers will learn that hostility towards america
.arries enormous cost thank the t to gentleman from kentucky for his effort, and i urge all my colleagues to support this vitally needed legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from california. thank the gentleman from kentucky for his effort, and i urge ms. waters: i now yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is ecognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for yielding and for her leadership on this committee. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of mrs. maloney: i h.r. 3898. in august i was part of a congressional delegation led by senator markey that visited south korea, japan, and the border between china and north korea. t is just a short drive from
seoul, a city of about $10 million people, to the d.m.z., which is the border line with north korea. and standing there you understand and see firsthand that even though the united states would prevail, unquestionably, in any armed onflict, the casualtyies suffered by -- casualties suffered by south korea would be horrendous. with i hosted a meeting congresswoman wagner with south korean foreign minister kang here in the congress. and from these two meetings i came back more convinced than ever that we have to leave no stone unturned with to solve th most dangerous problem of our times peacefully through negotiation. i firmly believe that the only way to drive north korea to the
negotiation table is to increase the financial pressure on this reckless rogue regime which is what this bill does. it is one of the toughest sanction bills financially we have ever considered and may be the toughest. the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency gives our country a very important . t of legislative companies doing business all over the world want to be paid, need to be paid in. dollars not in any other currency. so if we restrict international and u.s. financial institutions from doing business with north korea, then no matter how determined they might be to continue their destabilizing reckless course, they simply will not be able to get the
dollars to buy the tools of terror that they need. need on the internasht market -- international market. this is not the type of action we should ever take lightly. use and ot a tool to action to take indiscriminately, but in this rare case, in the case of north korea, use and action to such action is not on justified, it is necessary for the defense of our nation and the defense of other nations. by rth north korea cannot the materials because they don't have the dollars, then every country, every person on this globe can breathe a little easier and be a little safer. i ask for an additional minute. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional one minute.
mrs. maloney: so this is really an urgently needed bill that not only directly addresses our own security needs but also does a great service to the community of nations. i'd like to thank my friend, mr. barr, for all of his creative and hard work on this bill. and thank the chairman hensarling and ranking member waters for their leadership and support. i urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: mr. speaker, i, too, appreciate the bipartisan work on this piece of legislation. but i just do have to respond to my friend from the gentlelady from california and her comments about the trump administration and the shift in policy. it's hard to dispute that
president trump's official actions on north korea have got beijing's attention in a way that previous american presidents have not. and president trump's tough rhetoric and tough talk on north korea matches a shift in policy away from strategic patience to one that uses enhanced pressure through sanctions and the credible threat of military force to give substance and meaning to our diplomacy. and even the democrat witness in our hearing on this legislation admitted that the president's strong language had made a difference in giving us additional leverage in our negotiations with china. and so with that, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. wenstrup: mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues to support mr. barr's legislation, the otto warmbier north korea nuclear sanctions act. north korea has continued to prove a dangerous and destabilizing force to northeast asian region as well
as the united states and its allies. its repeated missile tests, nuclear weapons tests and heinous human rights violations demand that the united states continue its diplomatic and economic isolation campaign. today's bill is named for my constituent, otto warmbier, of wyoming, ohio, in the greater cincinnati area. otto passed away on june 19 after spending 18 months in detention by the north korean regime. the brutality of which was far beyond human decency or civility. the pain and hard ache endured by otto, his family and friends can never be undone or erased but congress can continue to take action by passing h.r. 3898 today and imposing the most far-reaching sanctions yet to be directed at north korea. there's no simple solution to countering such complex national security threats, but it's critical we utilize both economic and diplomatic rules
to hold hostile regimes like north korea, when they go against our allies, our citizens and our security and i strongly urge support of this bill by every member of this chamber and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. to my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle who was responding to part of my statement, of course, there are many in this country who worry about president trump's reckless threats, his promise of fire and fury, his vow to destroy the kim regime, this go and ling, war monger rejection of diplomacy, it directly contradicting his leading cabinet officials who continue to stress the importance of imposing pressure on the kim regime. it also demonstrates a command in chief who lacks the -- to
convince our allies to join us in dealing with the north korean threat. the speaker pro tempore: members rereminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. ms. waters: the gentlelady will happily not engage in personalities except to say the rhetoric is -- to call kim jong un the little rocket man is not productive and it does not do us well. we have a situation which nearly every high level official in the u.s. government believes the threats posed by the north korean nuclear and missile programs must be front and center in u.s. national security decisionmaking. this is a time for u.s. diplomatic and foreign policy efforts to be aggressively focused on intent sbensfying economic and diplomatic coordination with our allies and china in a strategy that would entail sophisticated policymaking capacity and coordination across the u.s.
government but instead, a week ago in a move that i believe history will strongly condemn, president trump refused to recertify the iran nuclear deal , throwing into question continued u.s. support for the landmark nuclear accord. whether you support or hate the iran nuclear deal, it's widely viewed, at least so far as successfully containing iran's nuclear ambitions and will for many years. there can be no question that president trump's threat to walk away from the international nuclear accord will have a direct and profoundly negative effect on our ability to convince kim jong un or our allies that america will honor any commitment to integrate north korea into the global community if it gives up its nuclear and missile programs. in short, the president's threat to withdraw from the iran nuclear deal undermines our credibility as a
negotiating partner and throws into question the prospect of any effective nuclear diplomacy with north korea. at a time when we are facing a nuclear crisis with north korea, raising questions about our commitment to the iran nuclear deal not only defies strategic logic but also undermines our national security. and on that issue, i would welcome, as i do with the legislation before us today, a stronger, more unified bipartisan front. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the vice chairman of the financial institutions subcommittee, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding. i rise in strong support to this bipartisan legislation sponsored by my friend and colleague, mr. barr from
kentucky. this legislation sends a clear message to the rest of the world, you can either do business with the united states and the free world or you can do business with the brutal dictatorship of kim jong un and the democratic's people of the republic of north korea. you cannot deal with both. mr. speaker, the gravest threat facing our nation today is north korea. the world's worst perpetrator of human rights. kim's contempt for human life animates both his human rights record and his nuclear ambition. just this past june, we learned how the kim's regime tortured university of virginia student otto warmbier. his parents, cindy and fred, went public with the details of their son's suffering in september during an interview with cnn. these are just a few of the details that fred and cindy shared in that interview. halfway up the stairs we hear this loud howling, inhuman sound. he is strapped to a stretcher,
he's blind, deaf, on a feeding tube. his bottom teeth look like they have been taken with a pair of pliers and rearranged. his mother cindy described how his hands and legs were totally deformed. otto's story sembsd as a very real and very tangible reminder and teaches a new generation of americans of what happens under totalitarian governments and communist dictators. now as the brutal kim regime continues its nuclear quest, the same barbarism that killed otto threatens all americans. this july the dictator said they had the intercontinental ballistic missile to go anywhere in the world. they claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb that could be mounted on a missile. these actions must not be ignored. this bill adds secondary sanctions passed in may. it prevents person facilitating with, investing with, participating with a north korean entity but also targets
foreign financial institutions from aiding in such actions. simply put, this cuts off all participation with north korea related business interests, freezing out the capital that funds north korea. mr. speaker, 56 years ago at the height of the cold war when another godless communist regime threatened the world, president kennedy reminded us of america's exceptional nature and consequent leadership in the world. his inaugural address included this reflection. and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbearers fought are still at issue around the globe. the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of god. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, not just for otto and his family but for all those who might be harmed by north korea if we do not act now. i again thank the gentleman from kentucky for his leadership on this vital issue and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hill: i thank the speaker. i thank our distinguished subcommittee chairman. i'm proud to support my colleague from kentucky on his bill, h.r. 3898, the otto warmbier north korea nuclear sanctions act. i think it's important for all of us in this chamber to know, mr. speaker, as well as the people across this country, that there is no daylight between the two political parties on this -- in this capitol, and there is no daylight between the united states government and our allied governments around the world in working together to develop sanction regimes, both bilaterally here in the united states and multilaterally across the world to end this
nuclear threat. for 24 years, mr. speaker, we've had three presidencies, we're in our fourth presidency dealing with this issue. this issue has not been handled. we have not sanctioned this regime. we have not enforced those sanctions. we have not obtained multilateral sanctions. we have not ever given the kim dictatorship one reason to think that our government and our allied friends around the world are serious about ending the nuclear threat from north korea. so i thank my friend from kentucky for standing up in the financial services committee and leading the way for secondary sanctions. i thank my friend, chairman royce and ranking member engel in the foreign affairs committee, for their work with this administration to end this threat to not only north asia, our economic allies, our national security allies, but our friends around the world. i urge all my colleagues to
support this important legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, a member of the financial services committee, mr. bud. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. bud: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of representative barr's bill. how is it, mr. speaker, that a tiny isolated country like north korea has the ability to fund and develop a nuclear weapons program with the capability to strike american soil? the answer of that question is payable through accounts which are tools used by north korea to bypass u.s. sanctions against them. nonnorth korean actors use these accounts to fund the government through shell and front companies. while these sanctions are implemented in good faith, it's time to acknowledge that
sometimes they just don't work. but there is some good news, mr. speaker. if enacted this bill requires the treasury secretary to impose strict conditions on those who knowingly do business with north korea through those accounts. we've also seen the united nations take action rently by banning north korea's export of -- recently by banning north cry ea's export of iron ore in stopping the continued development of their nuclear weapons program. and finally, the trump administration's executive orders will help us more easily target companies that do business with north korea. these actions plus the enactment of this legislation will create the most debilitating sanctions package pyongyang and their surrogates have ever seen. of all of the positive things in this bill, though, i am more excitemented amending the brettonwood agreement act, directing the i.m.f. and the
world bank to use our vote to oppose financial assistance to governments that knowingly support the kim regime. the united states has long used its economic influence and more aggressive element of soft power to advance an agenda that liberates the oppressed in the darkest corners of the world like north korea. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for introducing this bill and i urge its adoption. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, reserves her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: may inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has seven minutes remaining. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from indiana, another distinguished member of the financial services committee,
mr. hollingsworth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. hollingsworth: i, too, rise in strong support of this legislation. every single week i make phone calls to hoosiers back home and i hear every night on those phone calls how hard they are working to build a better and brighter future for themselves, for their families, and for their children. but they understand that in order to have a brighter, better future, they must have a future. hear on the phone every single night how concerned they are that there won't be a future with all that they see, all that they read, all that they hear about from these threats from north korea. we in congress have heard their pleas to do something, that enough is enough. that threats against guam, that icbm's flying off the peninsula, nuclear tests, the time has come for decisive action. and decisive action is what we're taking here.
the toughest financial sanctions ever put in place, that is what this bill does. that is what we need to put in place to ensure that we demand real change from north korea. we demand that they stop threatening americans and the american way of life. so i support this legislation, support the work that is being done to confront this challenge once and for all. the his bill demands question, will you stand up in support of this legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to the question, will you do business with the united states or will you do business with north korea? i am excited to reserve. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back her time. the gentleman from kentucky with 1 1/2 minutes to close. mr. barr: i'm pleased to yield
the remainder of our time to the gentleman from indiana, another distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. messer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from kentucky for his leadership and my colleague from indiana for his leadership on this legislation as well. mr. speaker, from day one president trump's message to north korea has been clear, the u.s. will not tolerate any north korean actions that threaten american lives. hoosiers appreciate president trump's leadership and understand the crisis we face. north korea is an erratic and brutal regime. we simply cannot accept a world in which north korea has nuclear weapons that can reach american shore. unfortunately, with each missile test, we're moving closer to that world becoming a reality. that's why i'm proud to work with my colleagues from kentucky and other colleagues
on the otto warmbier north korean nuclear sanctions act. with this bill, we will give foreign financial institutions a clear choice. can you either do business with kim jong-un in north korea or you can do business with the united states. but not both. by imposing the toughest financial sanctions every on north korea, this bill cuts off crucial resources that the regime relies on to finance its weapons program. i urge my colleagues to support this measure, help us meet the north korean threat head-on, and do what's necessary to protect our country. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will -- the ntleman from kentucky bar -- did the kentucky. mr. barr: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill -- the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: on that qui the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3101, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3101, a bill to enhance cybersecurity information sharing and coordination at ports of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from texas, mr. vella, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the strengthening cybersecurity information sharing and coordination in our ports act. more than 1 $1.3 trillion in cargo travels through american seaports along our coast every year. the safe, constant, unrestricted flow of goods and services through our maritime
transportation system that played a vital role in allowing the united states to become the global superpower it is today. to put it simply, our seaports are the gateways to our economic survival. unfortunately, our port systems increasingly benefit from new technology, high capacity information technology and computer systems, they are also increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs of those who are waging a sishe war against the united states. -- waging a cyberwar against the united states. america is a constant target. recent years, china successfully stole over 20 million security clearance from o.p.m. russia waged a cyberwar against our political system. and equifax had breached -- had a breach that jeopardized sensitive information on over 43 million people. in june, the port of los angeles learned that several of our committee members will be visiting next week was briefly shut down because of cyberattack.
this is one of our busiest ports and estimated it costs nearly $300 million in economic damage. we must do more to strengthen cybersecurity of these essential maritime hubs. fortunately we have that opportunity. the legislation before us requires the department and the secretary of homeland security assessment a risk model which focuses on cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks. this assessment will be reviewed periodically so we can determine the best security practices to implement at each port. the bill also requires the d.h.s. secretary work with the national and area marine time security advisory committee to model which focuses on analyze and share cyberrisk and report to congress measures that have been taken to improve cybersecurity at our nation's ports. this bill will strengthen the security of our homeland, protect our economic assets, i want to thank congresswoman torres and other members of the
homeland security committee for their hard work on this issue, and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an exchange between the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the committee on homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. villa. mr. villa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. villa: mr. speaker, i stand today in support of h.r. 3101, the strengthening cybersecurity information sharing and coordination in our ports act. port facilities serve as a vital economic function for our nation and the communities in which they are located. the approximately 360 commercial maritime ports operating across the united states handle more than $1.3 trillion in cargo annually. to facilitate and maintain this level of economic activity, the maritime sector increasingly relies on technology to
facilitate the movement of cargo into and through port facilities. collectively navigation, operations, and communications technologies enhance the competitiveness, safety, and reliability of the u.s. maritime sector. however, as port operations have become more automated, explow sure to cyberthreats and attack vs. also increased. this homeland security threat is not unique to the maritime sector. in fact, since 2003, the government accountability office has warned about the nerkt of critical infrastructure and called on the federal government to support efforts to bolster cybersecurity. to better protect the port facilities from cyberattacks, congress must ensure that expertise in both the private and public sector is leveraged effectively. h.r. 3101 would direct d.h.s. to be more proactive in how it addresses cybersecurity risks at our nation's ports. the first step in reducing cybervulnerabilities is
identifying the weak points and network security risk assessments. h.r. 3101 requires these assessments. the bill directs the coast guard to provide port facilities with guidelines on how to report cybersecurity risks in order to enhance the ability of both the coast guard and port operators to respond effectively to such attacks. by promoting cybersecurity information sharing and coordination between public and private partners at maritime facilities, h.r. 3101 seeks to make a positive difference in how quickly terminal and port operators are able to prevent, mitigate, and recover from such attacks. h.r. 3101 if enacted will help environment in which d.h.s., the coast guard ports, and port stakeholders work together to enhance cybersecurity at our nation's ports. environment in which lastly, i would like to note the bipartisan support for this bill and the homeland security committee. thank chairman mccaul, ranking member thompson, and my colleague, congressman torres, for their hard work and
leadership in this matter. when this bill was considered last congress and earlier this fall, many colleagues on both sides of the aisle agreed that h.r. 3101 is a timely and worthwhile measure to support. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3101, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. vella. mr. vela: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. torres. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. miss torres: before i begin i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and also ranking member thompson and ranking of your la and all committee staff for their great work in support of this very important legislation. today not be here
without your commitment to keeping our torts safe. thank you. mr. speaker, you can't turn on the television or visit your favorite website without seeing cyberthreats dominating the news. all industries including our own federal agencies have been targets. costing our economy dearly and exposing the personal information of hundreds of millions of employees. this is a growing problem that is not going away. rather, these threats are becoming more common and more severe. from the interference in our elections, attack from government workers, email hacks, and the theft of credit card information, cyberthreats are everywhere and it is time that we modernize the federal government's planning and response to these threats. in june, a danish shipping company was infected with mall wear that affected 17 of its containers terminals
worldwide. the virus spread to two million computers within a two-hour period. as a containers terminals worldwide. result, the largest terminal at the port of los angeles shut down for four days from the cyberattack. a recent study estimated the cost of a shut down of the port of los angeles and long beach at $1 billion per day to the local economy. more than $1.3 trillion in cargo moved annually through our nation's 360 commercial ports, and many of the goods that enter through the port of los angeles and the port of long beach come to my district before being shipped to the rest of the country. this is -- with this much economic activity, and the increase use of cybertechnology to manage port operations, ranging from communications, navigation, to engineering, safety, and cargo, it is critical to protect our maritime cyberinfrastructure.
it's time that congress modernize our federal agencies. this is why i am proud to bring the strengthening cybersecurity information sharing and coordination in our ports act to the floor today. this would address cybersecurity risks on our nation's ports through several measures, setting standards for reporting, providing guidance support, being port representatives to the table for future planning and modernizing how coast guard addresses cyberthreats. these are commonsense measures. this bill has bipartisan support. the strengthening cybersecurity information sharing and coordination sports act passed the house and i'm confident that passage today will push the senate into action.
this legislation is supported by the port of los angeles, congressional ports caucus chairs and endorsed by the maritime and port information sharing and analysis organization. and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation because we simply can't afford not to. ports are too critical to our economy and our nation. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: i have no other speakers and if the gentleman from texas has no other speakers, i'm prepared to close. ms. velazquez: i'm prepared to close. h.r. 3901 will impositive the way we manage cybersecurity risks at our ports. with increased need for technology, it is in our national and economic interests to have better information sharing and better coordination at our ports. by assessing cyber risks and
establishing countermeasures, the maritime sector will improve these sectors. i encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 3101. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i congratulate miss torres and mr. vela. we have passed over 50 bills out of my committee out of the house floor and sent them to the senate where they still sit there with no action whatsoever and when it comes to homeland security measures, i believe that it is dangerous not to do nothing. and i urge the senate to take up action on this bill and the other 50 bills. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3101 as
amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. goodlatte: i ask -- to call up h.r. 732, the stop settlement slush funds act and ask unanimous consent that all members may have five
legislative days to include extraneous materials to h.r. 372. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 577 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 732. the chair apoints the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for consideration of h.r. 732 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill pursuant to which the united states is a party and for other purposes. the chair: the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided controlled by the chair and ranking member members on the committee of the judiciary.
chairman from virginia, mr. demrat and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. last congress the house judiciary committee commenced an investigation into the owe baum ave justice department pattern or practice of requiring settling defendants to donate money to third-party groups. in its final two years, the obama d.o.j. directed nearly a billion dollars to third parties entirely outside of congress' spending and oversight authority. all along the obama justice department strained to deny the obvious problem, that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities to play favorites. deputy associate attorney general jeffrey graber that the department was not in the business picking and choosing
which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement. but internal d.o.j. documents tell a different story. they show that contrary to graber's sworn testimony, the donation provisions were structured to aid the obama administration's political friends and exclude conservative groups. from the outset, his boss, tone west, was keenly interested in choosing the organizations that would receive settlement money. in the leadup to the first troubling settlement, west's deputy e mailed the office of legal counsel asking, can you explain to tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing? end quote. explaining the final settlement to the press team west's deputy wrote that the donation provisions require banks to quote make donations to entities we have specified as opposed to
what the bank might normally choose to donate to, end quote. sure enough, congress received testimony in 2016 that the donation beneficiaries were obama administration allies, these include the neighborhood assistance corporation of america, whose director calls himself a bank terrorist. but aiding their political allies was only the half of it. the evidence of the obama d.o.j.'s abuse of power shows tony west's team went out of its way to exclude conservative groups. on july 8, 2014, six days before d.o.j. finalized settlement, tone yes west circulated a draft of the mandatory donation terms. a senior official from the office of access to justice who had been working with tony west to direct settlement aid to legal aid organizations responded requesting a word change. she explained the rewording
cti achieve not allowing to pick an entity, which she explained, quote, does con serve property rights free legal services, end quote. the change was made. it's not every day in congressional investigations that we find a smoking gun. here we have it. unfortunately, the chief architect of this outrage was lauded, not punished. the recipients of the donations rom was circulated in emails seeking to recognize tony west who was the one person most response i will for including the donation provisions, end quote. one organization replied, quote, frankly, i would be willing to have us build a tony west statue and then bow down to the statue ach day after we get our
$200,000-plus, end quote. mr. west's abuse of power stands in stark contrast to the reassertion of integrity by the current attorney general, jeff sessions. attorney general sessions shut down the use of mandatory donations to benefit outside groups through a policy directive issued earlier this year. this legislation remains necessary because history shows that we cannot rely on the current d.o.j. policy remaining in place. in point in fact in 2009, the incoming obama administration reversed course from previous d.o.j. guidance that started imposing limits. this reversal led to the abuses i highlighted. h.r. 732 is a bipartisan bill that would make the ban on settlement payments to nonvictim third parties binding on future administrations. the bill makes clear that payments to provide resstitution
for harm directly caused including harm to the environment were permitted. it was obvious that mandatory donation provisions create opportunity for abuses and such abuses actually occurred is now proven. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this good-government measure and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman and colleagues, the stop settlement slush funds act would prohibit the federal government from entering into any or enforcing any settlement agreement requiring donations to remediate
harms that are not quote, directly and approximately end ote, caused by a wrongdoer's unlawful conduct. i regretfully oppose this measure for several reasons. to begin with, the bill would prohibit these types of settlement agreements even though they have been successfully used to remedy various harms particularly those caused by reckless corporate actors. for example, these settlement agreements help facilitate an effective and comprehensive response to the predatory and fraudulent mortgage lending activities of financial institutions that nearly caused the economic collapse of our
nation and that led to the great recession. in fact, settlement agreements with two of these culpable financial institutions, bank of america and ctigroup required a donation of less than 1% of the overall settlement amount to fund foreclosure prevention and remediation programs that helped harm to consumers. now contrary to the majority's claim, the justice department did not use any of these settlement agreements to fund active groups. notwithstanding the production of hundreds of pages of documents by the justice department along with hundreds of pages of documents produced by private parties, we have not
seen a shred of evidence that the government included unlawful or politically-motivated terms in its settlement agreements with bank of america or ctigroup. the majority also averts that these settlement agreements are used by the justice department and other agencies to circumvent the congressional appropriations process. but existing law already prevents agencies from augmenting their own funds. by law, donations included in settlement agreements must have clear nexus to the prosecutorial powers. in the government accountability office and congressional service
concluded that agreements providing for secondary remediation do not violate congress' constitutional power of the purse. finally, h.r. 732 would prevent the remediation of systemic harms in civil and criminal enforcement action. these settlement agreements allow parties to resolve their civil or criminal liability by voluntary remediating the harms caused by their unlawful conduct. for some types of unlawful conduct such as discrimination based on race or religion, secondary remediation of harms may be the only remedy available for systemic violations of the law. the victims of such conduct are
typically not themselves parties to the underlying action. therefore, secondary remediation in the form of voluntary compliance and training programs serves as an important tool in these cases to protect victims of discrimination. yet, h.r. 732 would effectively prohibit such relief. given these serious problems and some others presented by the led to trongly am oppose h.r. 732. and mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i would like to place in the record a number of exhibits, exhibit a under which under oath, we had testimony that said
the department of justice did not want to be in the business of picking or choosing organizations that may or may not receive any funding under an agreement. and yet exhibit b in which the number three at the department of justice under president obama said, can you explain to tony the best way to allocate money toward organizations of our oosing in a $9 billion settlement and in exhibit c in which they specifically said they had concerns including not a wing ctibank to pick statewide intermediary that does conservative causes. i ask these exits be included. i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. .
mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yield and mr. goodlatte for bringing forth this legislation. i, like many of our members on the judiciary committee, am a lawyer. i served as a prosecutor, serbed -- served as a judge. and we have a lot of those legal things on our -- eagles on our judiciary committee. although i work primarily in state court as a judge and a prosecutor, i've always had great respect for those people in the justice department who work on behalf of the people of the united states in federal court. however, over the last few years, my opinion of the justice department has changed and it's changed not for the better. it's changed because i see that the justice department is acting as a political entity. i didn't say partisan entity.
i said as a political entity. making decisions for what appear to be based on politics rather than the law and policy. so this legislation does one thing. it tries to elevate the justice department back to a nonpolitical entity. which it has unfortunately, in my opinion, become. a political entity. that's unfortunate that it has become that. and some of the things that the justice department has done, and this legislation would, i think, prevent, would be to make sure that the justice department does not become a political entity in determining settlements of lawsuits that the justice department files on behalf of the american public. and so what happens is these
lawsuits are settled. and then the justice department tells the defendant that we the people are suing that you contribute to this entity and this will all go away. this case will be settled. there won't have to be a trial. and so that's what's been happening over the last few years. 2012, the department of justice forced gibson gatares to pay a $50,000 quote, quote, community service payment -- $50,000, quote, community service payment to the national fish and wildlife foundation, even though the foundation was not a it was f the crime that involved in. it had no connection to that case. the national fish and wildlife foundation received a bigger windfall, again in 2012, when the government required british petroleum, we all remember the
b.p. spill, to donate $2.5 billion to the foundation over a five-year period. in connection with the criminal investigation of the gulf of mexico oil spill. discretion on the part of the department of justice on where the money goes, it smells, mr. speaker. it doesn't pass the smell test. in 2006 the department of justice forced a wastewater plant that had been accused of violating the clean water act to give $1 million to the united states coast guard alumni association. now, i love the coast guard. we probably all love the coast guard. but government shouldn't be making a decision to give taxpayer money or money to any association. it's the political decision that the justice department has been making. the waste water treatment firm was also forced to pay another $1 million to the greater new
haven water pollution control authority in connecticut, to fund unspecified environmental improvement projects. a recent attack on the d.o.j. bank settlement with goldman sachs required a $250 million fee to be assessed, financing donations toward affordable housing. this is a political decision by the justice department. and there are many other examples that we will put into the record. this should not be a department of justice decision on a settlement. if they sue somebody and they settle the case, the money should go to the victim of that lawsuit. it should not go to the department of justice's discretion, to pick political entities. remember, i didn't say partisan. i just said political. go to the victim.
go to the victims of crime act. go to where crime victims get funds. go back to the u.s. treasury. but the money should not be made -- i'd ask for an additional minute. mr. issa: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman has an additional one minute. mr. poe: let's take the politics and the decision making and the credibility or lack of credibility of the justice department in settling cases on behalf of the united states people, and take it away from the justice department and put it where it's supposed to go. to the victims of that lawsuit. that's where it should go. if it doesn't go there, then it should go to the victims of crime act. a federal government entity where funds for criminal violations go into a fund. or it should go to the united states treasury. remove the politics, no matter who the president is, remove the politics of the justice department so they can regain
credibility with the american people for being involved in justice, not politics. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would now like to yield five minutes to the distinguished member of the house judiciary can committee, mr. cicilline -- judiciary committee, mr. cicilline of rhode island, who is ranking on the subcommittee on regulatory reform and commercial and anti-trust law. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r. 732. the inaptly titled stop settlement slush funds act of 2017. which would flatly ban the enforcement of any settlement agreement that seeks to remedy
the general harms caused by unlawful conduct. this prohibition would broadly apply to all civil and criminal settlements, with limited exception, encroaching on the justice department's long standing legal authority to negotiate and enter settlement agreements. since its establishment in 1870, the justice department has possessed plenty of authority to litigate on behalf of the government and all civil and criminal litigation, exempt as otherwise provided by law. since at least as early as 1888, the supreme court has upheld this broad grant of authority, holding that extent to settling litigation on behalf of the government or making enforcement decisions in light of priority and resources. in one lawsuit, the court held in 1985 that in many cases enforcement decisions within the justice department's expertise make it, and i quote, far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its
priorities, end quote. this rationale also extends to the terms of settlement agreements, which involve numerous complicated technical issues, as well as important judgments respecting the use of limited prosecutorial resources and are best left in the hands of expert agencies and prosecutors, rather than dictated by congress or the federal courts. as environmental law expert professor mince has noted. h.r. 732 undermines this long standing policy by strictly curtailing the enforcement discretion of the justice department, and the other enforcement agencies, when resolving a party's civil or criminal liability on behalf of the federal government. as the justice department observed last congress in the context of a substantively similar bill, and i quote, limiting the department's discretion to negotiate appropriate terms of settlement, which are voluntary and agreed to by the parties, may result in fewer settlement agreements, retracted litigation and delays for victims who need the relief, end quote. without this discretionary authority, the departmenting can concluded, that and i quote, the government may not
be able to -- the department concluded that, and i quote, the government may nobt able to defend the harms that were caused. in contrary to the arguments of the gentleman from virginia, despite two years of investigation by the judiciary committee into the justice department's use of settlement agreements, no evidence was found to show that the mortgage fraud settlements contained terms that were politically motivated. but we did learn that the soul mission of the justice department -- sole mission of the justice department's settlements under the prior administration was to aid the families commose economic security was jeopardized -- -- jeopardized by reckless wall street behavior and prevent them fromlusion their homes due to fraudulent mortgage practices. there are many examples where generalized harm is impossible to calculate or impractical to quantify in the courts, and without this ability by the justice department to enter into these settlement agreements, corporate wrong doctors are going to be free -- wrongdoers are going to be free to do whatever they want. one example, deep water --
deepwater horizon. there was state-based cleanup that was provided, there was funding for the national fish and wildlife foundation for remediation, things that were directly responsive to the harm caused. but you couldn't quantify to an individual person, and that's what this legislation will prevent. i urge my colleagues to oppose this measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. if the minority has not gone through the discovery that we have, that we placed in the record, i'll be glad to give mr. cicilline or anyone else a copy. i'm just going repeat, though, after receiving testimony that they didn't pick winners and losers, what we're mark something exhibit b and c make it clear they were -- marking is exhibition b and c make it clear they were. i think the important questions here, though, mr. speaker, are, if they want to have money in a
settlement such as the deepwater horizon tragedy, they certainly could as long as it directly provides aid to the victims. which of course cleanup did. but when we look at these others, one of the great questions is, if they want to put it into a victim's fund as part of it, a government-controlled fund, they can. if they want. if the department of justice wants specific authority, the way they do, for example, in water settlements, particularly related to native american tribes, they offer a deal they put one together, and, mr. speaker, they come to congress. this congress, in the last congress, settled multiple longstanding disputes with tribes. and you know what's interesting? they made sure the money went to those who had been harmed when they came to congress and said, please codify this agreement. but in the many agreements that
seemed to go on in the obama administration, and we now have the smoking gun of that, they made political decisions. making political decisions is why you hop to put this back in the light of day and with real congressional oversight. you know, what's amazing is during the markup of this bill, there were a number of members of the other party who specifically talked about not trusting the current occupant of the white house and the current attorney general. it baffles me that they would not want to take back this authority, knowing that the department of justice could bring to us a request for a bill that would authorize a specific settlement that could have outside groups or grant authority on a case by case basis. the reality is, the slush fund system has to stop, that's why chairman goodlatte, bringing this bill today, was so critical. -- why chairman goodlatte bringing this bill today was so critical. i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: you've got a minority report you're putting in with a list of abuses. is that correct? mr. issa: mr. issa: yes, you have copy. mr. cohen: you have all the things that came that chris christie showing the abuses of the system -- the chair: the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. mr. issa: although i don't have them, i'm sure they prove the same point that the light of day, the cleanlyness of sunlight and appropriation would have protected against the abuses you are probably describing. mr. cohen: mr. pascrell will
describe it in more detail. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield 30 seconds. mr. cohen: we had hearings on this and deposit have any support from the other side of the aisle when we appointed out all of the abuses that were going on in new jersey that monitors were making $52 million. mr. ashcroft in particular. and where money was given to mr. christie's law school and pet project and nobody criticized him. nly when it was about obama. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: the gentleman's points are good but his conclusion may be where i differ. the gentleman from tennessee is right to know past
indiscretions. why we have this bill before you today and why passage is so important. we don't want to have anybody of either party, the current occupant of the white house is from my party. the current attorney general is from my party, a republican and former republican senator. the fact is, now is the time not to necessarily disspearge any past activity, but to stop it. we are not a body that is supposed to trust as much as we are a body to have some trust and to verify. and when we find wrongdoing, it's our job to make sure it doesn't happen again. this bill, including the comments of the the gentleman from tennessee, this bill seeks to do that. i'm convinced it's good for that reason and even good for the example that mr. cohen suggested. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan.
mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. jerry nadler, who is the ranking member on the subcommittee on courts and intellectual property, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank you mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 732. this misguided legislation would restrict the government's flexibility to resolve lawsuits and would make it harder to provide a remedy to those who are harmed. in the well accomplished law when settling claims, the department of justice may seek to include a contribution by the defendant to a third party organization. because it is often difficult to identify each individual who is harmed by the company's actions particularly those who suffer the secondary effects, these third-party payments are to address harms caused by corporate bad actors. this will eliminate any payment.
but to remedy a harm that is directly and proximately caused by the defendant. such restrictions will hamper the d.o. squmplet's ability to resolve claims and provide relief. for example in the wake of a financial crisis, served several large banks that destabilized the housing markets. with millions more placed on the brink of foshe while the banks reaped mags i have profits. they agreed to pay record-setting fines in recognition to the tremendous damage they aused. some of these agreements caused harm to legal aid organizations responsible for assisting homeowners devastated by the forecast crisis. the republican majority says these nationally recognized community organizations and dismisses them as activist
groups. republicans are concerned that funds were going to rganizations to help level the playing field, and homeowners and communities across the country are still struggling with the aftermath of the forecast crisis and the third party payments negotiated by the obama administration have been vital in helping both direct funds and those who suffered consequences. attorney general sessions announced his justice department will not include such terms, but supporters of this bill say we must tie the hands of future administrations as well weakening their ability to resolve claims and preventing them to use this tool. this unnecessary and irresponsible legislation is another attempt by the republican majority to favor wealthy corporations over individual victims and i urge my colleagues to oppose it.
the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i would like to provide a little clarity. we're not talking about left-wing, right wing or other groups who gets it. what we're talking about is a basic question of fung built of money. if something has been done wrong and a judge or the department of justice has x amount of determination of wrongdoing, the first question is, how much of that money can get to the victims. in a perfect world, the victims are made 100% whole. in a perfect world, 100% of the money passes from the perpetrator to the victim. the department of justice making decision not to a left or right-wing group but to give $1 million to the coast guard made a decision was not part of a
mitigation but rather a general charitable decision. that was $1 million that did not go to the victim or the general treasury but to the whims of a bureaucrat. we seek to make sure that if that is an appropriate action, that they come to congress with that and not decide the charity begins with some unelected official at the department of justice. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i give three minutes to the distinguished member of judiciary, representative johnson from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman from michigan for the time and i rise in opposition to h.r. 732, which would prohibit the u.s. government from entering into settlement agreements or enforcing
settlement agreements if the agreement includes a term that provides a payment to be made to a third party. in the class action context, known as ions are sypres. settlement from enforcement acks can advance programs that assist with recovery, benefits and relief for communities harmed by law breakers to the extent that such payments further the objectives of the enforcement action and this bill would cut that ability off. it cuts off any payments to third parties other than the individualized resstitution and other forms of direct payment. and that restriction would handcuff federal enforcement officials from actually doing justice. and this legislation arose out f the wall street too big to
ail episode in 2008, which resulted in the great recession where millions of americans lost their homes to forecast -- foreclosure because of these too big to fail because of the subprime mortgage crisis is concerned. so the department of justice sued these big banks, which by the way, have continued to get bigger and bigger after they received their wall street bail out and the american people who lost their homes did not receive a bailout. this legislation is to protect those same banks. and i would add we have steve mnuchin as the head of the treasury department in the trump administration. so this legislation is keeping with that which would protect and cod will these wall street
thugs who have now ascended to the seat of government and look to lock down their control with this legislation. they prevent themselves from being sued. my friends on the other side of the aisle are complicit. they support too big to fail. they support the big banks at the expense of the little guy. the people who work hard every day, working for a salary, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay which seems to be harder and harder to do these days because of the legislation that this congress passes. this is just another in a long line of pieces of legislation that cod wills and protects those who need no protection. they should be in jail for what they have done to the american people. i fight against this kind of legislation. it's wrong for america. it's wrong for its citizens and
great for the big banks. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from yields back.eorgia mr. issa: i yield myself one minute. sometimes the obvious is missed in the debate. the gentleman from georgia talks about locking down tower. quite frankly republicans do have a majority in the house and slim majority in the senate and the current occupant in the house is from my party. so when we are trying to reduce potential misconduct by the executive branch, we're not doing it to take any money away. as a matter of fact, this law would clearly cause more money to flow from the same amount of initial payments, more money to flow to the victim. so we're trying to flow more money to the victims and no way reducing any aspect of settlements other than if they
-- if the current occupant of the white house, the attorney general and the president want to give to a charity of their choice, do it with their own money or come to congress for authority. i resmb. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm going to give the gentleman from georgia, 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. the department of justice, the same federal agency that obtained benefits for the homeowners who were hurt by the excesses of the big banks, that justice department is now controlled by jefferson sessions, who is not very keen on trying to recover damages on behalf of the people. and if he has to get permission from steve mnuchin of the treasury department to do it, they work so hand-in-hand, you
know there isn't going to be relief for the homeowners of this country. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, it's now my pleasure to recognize the distinguished the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker, ranking member, sitting chairman. i start by expressing my appreciation to chairman goodlatte for acknowledging that the actions that were taken by the governor of new jersey when he was the u.s. attorney back in 2006 and 2007 -- by the way, the former justice department was -- i n in existence yet agree on both sides what has been said here. but i think we're missing the
point. the legislation is needed to prohibit it from happening again. the gentleman from texas, wants to take the political preference out of the justice department. he is absolutely correct. i agree. but not just about where the money is going to go. got a major problem here. i have been shouting from the rooftops about the need to reform the justice department settlement agreement process for almost a decade on this floor. when we talk about lawsuits being settled, deferred prosecutions are to get rid of the defendant so that the defendant at the cost of doing business pays a fine. that's how it's done. this bill does nothing about that, zero. and so, many of a corporation
that stood before the courts and i'm not a lawyer as most of you guys and galsr they stood before years, s for 15 representing those corporations and what they got out was, well, look, we are going to slap you on the wrist and give you a little fine, at that time, you give the money to whoever you ish and then you go away. nobody's prosecuted, nobody goes to jail. nobody. guaranteed. but under the guise of ensuring accountability, quote-unquote, h.r. 732 is a political exercise, missing the real reprimand for these practices. reforms to the system or redress to actual victims.
for years we've known the prosecution agreements get out of hand. regardless of whether it's a democrat in the house, running the presidency, or a republican. so for to you stand up there or anybody to stand up there and just say, this was obama's problem, you don't know history. i suggested a modest reform to improve the transparency of these agreements. i was rebuffed by some of the very people who are in this room. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: i grant the gentleman 30 additional seconds. the chair: the gentleman yields 30 additional seconds. mr. pascrell: remember in the bristol-myers case, they avoided prosecution for securities fraud for exchange , r a $5 million, $5 million fat governor's law schoolal --
to the governor's law school alma mater. that's what's going on. mr. speaker, you don't accept that. you're on the justice committee. you can't accept that either. you have to be kidding me. to allow the courts to do something like this, in any administration, democrat, republican, to go along with this, no wonder the people have little faith in the justice system in the united states of america. i simply want fairness, mr. speaker. i've asked for it many, many, many times. this is not a new subject to me. and i'll be back talking about it again. thank you for your indulgence. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i just want to take a moment to agree with the gentleman from new jersey. the idea that you can pay a fine to get out from under criminal prosecution is one that i would like to see either eclipsed to where it's almost invisible, and rarely used, or done away with altogether. i would certainly agree to join with the gentleman in finding
further prohibitions to that practice. it has been too often that a corporation able to pay large amounts of money not only escapes its actions, but of course it escapes the prosecution of key individuals who may in some cases be responsible for the loss of life and/or health. so i want to join with the gentleman from new jersey. that's not what this bill is about. it doesn't deal with it for this fail -- deal with it, nor fail to deal with it. i would urge the gentleman who does agree with a portion what have we have to say to work with me. i'll be happy to be his co-sponsor on a piece of legislation to try to curtail that practice. today we're trying to curtail a practice in which we have examples of both republicans and democrats in the office of the attorney general, their justice department, making settlements that seem to have political bias and that's what we're here to stop. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the crime subcommittee on judiciary, ms. sheel of texas, for three -- ms. sheila jackson lee of texas, for three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the manager of this ladies and gentlemenslation and i would only offer to say that there's -- of this legislation and i would only offer to say there's not one democrat on this bill. that's where you first start the bipartisanship. to work with members who may in fact believe that some of the issues that have been raised by my good friend from california may have merit. maybe this bill could have been drafted in a way that would have responded to some of the failures, if there are some, such as, as seffsed by our good friend from new jersey, who recalled a lot of failures. not by democrats, but by republicans. but when you start off with a
bill talking about slush funds, then you negate the good work of so many organizations that have benefited to do good, to do the very good that the consent decree was intended to do. today i stood with the latinas against domestic violence. they came here to stand against the violence against women that goes on and on and on. some of them may be in the gallery. but what i would say, mr. speaker, is, why would we not want to give that organization, if they were in line to get or ars, to help prevent intervene in the foulness of domestic violence? so the area that our friends on the -- so the idea that our friends on the other side are missing, is they're missing the value of some of these entities that have been given. the only word that i've heard over and over again, as i've heard from the administration, i've heard from the secretary
-- the attorney general, the secretary, former secretary of health and human services, is one word. in fact, i think the english language has been limited to one word on the floor of the house. obama. i'd like to call him president barack obama. that's the respect i give him. but every legislative initiative has come forward on the shoulders of a man who's finished his eight years, and might i say with a great deal of respect, a great deal of respect. so here's what the bill will do and people are opposed to the bill. this bill would not give dollars to those victims who are harmed, who could engage in workplace monitoring, as well as other payments to remedy generalized harm. including recommend disdesigned to prevent -- prevent the recurrence of sexual violence or discrimination in the workplace. they wouldn't give it to environmental remedy projects such as needed cleanup efforts following the hazardous toxic pollutant spills that spoil protected areas, preventing
families and children from enjoying recreation on state lands designed for public use. they wouldn't give it to federally certified housing, counseling, intermediaries by preventing housing, counseling, relief to communities that have been preyed upon by financial institutions that have broken the law. this is not -- i even hate to use the term slush. they are dollars out of consent decrease that managed and monitored by career professionals making the decision to be helpful to those who are in need. so i'm opposed to the underlying legislation. i will offer an amendment and i will then introduce a variety of letters from counties and states. 15 seconds. mr. conyers: i would yield to the gentlelady an additional 20 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. i will be on this floor again, offering letters opposing, again, not only this dastardly named legislation, who would want to see this in the congressional record?
slush fund. undermining, conscious r -- undermining, as i said, the professionalism of our employees at the d.o.j. and the american citizens who are working today and these nonprofits to make the lives of america and america's children better. this is a bad bill. vote it down and it's not bipartisan. no judiciary committee democrat saw fit for it to be legitimate. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the gentlelady spoke quickly and i know she had a lot of important information there. some of it simply was wrong. one of them is she touched on environmental cleanup. very clearly nothing in this legislation would limit the cleanup related to the wrongdoing or the damage. not so. a third party could be hired to do the cleanup. additionally, nothing stops a settlement from requiring a
company to have counseling or other mitigation. it simply stops the department of justice from picking a charity of its choosing to go do it. now what i'd really like the gentlelady, i'm sorry she may not be on the floor any longer, but i'd like her to understand is the department of justice has grant authority and does multiple grants every single month of the year to some of the very same groups under its authority that these settlements are going toward. congress has allowed it, a certain. a money, to provide -- a certain amount of money to provide grants for certain harm. the congress every year allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the very same groups and efforts the gentlelady knows that we're talking about. so although her speech was quick, the things that she said that may have misled some people here in the chamber i think need to be corrected. direct harm will be mitigated, can be done by anyone.
a company can agree and be forced under supervision to mitigate and to hire people to help in that effort. and very clearly many of the groups being talked about here today already receive money through the grant process or through direct appropriation by congress. and that's the right way to do it. it's the reason this is a bipartisan bill. and this is an effort by our congress to make sure that we hold the reins of authority where they should be, under the constitution. and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. meeks: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i wish what the gentleman from california was saying was right. but as i listen to these tax cuts that are being talked about, many of these fine programs that help individuals
if they are being thrown out of their house or in need of legal aid though, are being cut back. each time that i've seen on the floor, the priorities of my -- of the gentleman -- of the party of the gentleman from california, sigh that these essential consumer-oriented not for profits are losing their funding. so i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no against h.r. 732. because this bill would tie the hands of prosecutors that go after financial fraud. including the mortgage schemes that led to the 2008 crisis. apparently my republican colleagues have forgotten that not just democrats but all americans faced a negative effect of the mortgage fraud that led to the worst financial crises since the great depression. americans lost nearly $13 trillion in wealth. the unemployment rate reached a high of 10%. and 11 million americans lost
their homes. and we all saw business opportunities evaporate in our communities and good paying jobs wither away. to reverse these wrongs, the obama administration reached record settlements for firms that engaged in fraud. through these settlement agreements, the department of justice directed billions of dollars toward affordable housing initiatives. including down payment programs that would help young people into the housing market. two, financial counseling programs that would help consumers avoid unsafe financial products. three, community development initiatives that would spur economic growth in rural and urban communities alike. so i am baffled that my colleagues would want to prevent our prosecutors from ensuring fraudulent firms to right their wrongs.
mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman yields the gentleman from new york an additional minute. mr. meeks: so, this should not be a partisan issue, mr. speaker. not at all. because americans, from the east, from the west, from the north and the south, from middle america, americans who are democrats and republicans, they've all -- independents, they've all suffered as a result of what the justice department has done by fighting to make sure that we correct this wrong, by fighting and winning decisions on making sure that those who have no voice has a voice. an many of the individuals that were funded here was giving a voice to the voiceless. because without that voice, those who have will continue to do and perpetuate the fraud that they've committed upon many. so this should not be a red issue, this should not be a blue issue. just as former president barack obama, this should be a red, white and blue issue.
it is a red, white and blue issue where justice should be given a fair chance to prevail for all of america's people. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. issa: i'm putting this sign up not for the people in the chamber, because people in the chamber on the other side have continued to read the same talking points from their leadership that says there's no evidence. now, this is in the record. this is a bigger part of it. so for the people in their offices who will come down to vote, if there's not a motion to recommit, they're not going to get an opportunity to see this. so i hope that they'll look just now and realize, this is one of those things you don't normally get. as chairman goodlatte said, this is a sk