H. Rept. 115-348 - JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017115th Congress (2017-2018)
Committee Report
Hide OverviewReport text available as:
- TXT
- PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-348
======================================================================
JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017
_______
October 16, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1096]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1096) to amend title 31, United States Code, to
provide for transparency of payments made from the Judgment
Fund, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 3
Hearings......................................................... 8
Committee Consideration.......................................... 8
Committee Votes.................................................. 8
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 8
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 8
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 10
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 10
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 10
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 10
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 11
Dissenting Views................................................. 13
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Judgment Fund Transparency Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Transparency Requirement.--Section 1304 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise
prohibited by law or court order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
make available to the public on a website, as soon as practicable, but
not later than 30 days after the date on which a payment under this
section is tendered on or after January 1, 2016, the following
information with regard to that payment:
``(A) The name of the specific agency or entity whose actions
gave rise to the claim or judgment.
``(B) The name of the plaintiff or claimant.
``(C) The name of counsel for the plaintiff or claimant.
``(D) The amount paid representing principal liability, and
any amounts paid representing any ancillary liability,
including attorney fees, costs, and interest.
``(E) A brief description of the facts that gave rise to the
claim.
``(F) The name of the agency that submitted the claim.
``(G) Any information available on reports generated by the
Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by the Treasury
Department.
``(2) In addition to the information described in paragraph (1), if a
payment under this section is made to a foreign state on or after
January 1, 2016, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to
the public in accordance with paragraph (1), the following information
with regard to that payment:
``(A) A description of the method of payment.
``(B) A description of the currency denominations used for
the payment.
``(C) The name and location of each financial institution
owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a foreign state
or an agent of a foreign state through which the payment passed
or from which the payment was withdrawn, including any
financial institution owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a foreign state or an agent of a foreign state
that is holding the payment as of the date on which the
information is made available.
``(3) Not later than January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the public on the
website described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) the total amount paid under this section during the
year preceding the date of the report; and
``(B) the amount paid under this section during the year
preceding the date of the report--
``(i) for attorney fees;
``(ii) for interest; and
``(iii) for all other payments.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `foreign state' has the meaning
given the term in section 1603 of title 28.
``(e) Except with regard to children under eighteen, the disclosure
of information required in this section shall not be considered a
`clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' for purposes of
title 5, United States Code.
``(f) No payment may be made under this section to a state sponsor of
terrorism, as defined in section 1605A(h) of title 28, or to an
organization that has been designated as a foreign terrorist
organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1189).''.
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall carry out
the amendment made by this section by not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Purpose and Summary
To increase government transparency of American taxpayer
dollars, this bill requires the Department of the Treasury to
disclose details after payments are made from the Judgment
Fund. Unless the disclosure is prohibited by law or a court
order, Treasury must disclose to the public on a website: the
agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or
judgment; the plaintiff or claimant; the counsel for the
plaintiff or claimant; the amount paid; a description of the
facts that gave rise to the claim; the agency that submitted
the claim; and any information available on reports generated
by the Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by Treasury.
If the payment is made to a foreign state, Treasury must also
disclose the following information: the method of payment; the
currency denomination used for the payment; and the name and
location of each financial institution owned or controlled by a
foreign state or an agent of a foreign state through which the
payment passed, from which the payment was withdrawn, or that
is holding the payment. The bill will also make public the
total annual amount paid for attorney fees, interest, and all
other amounts for all payments made from the Judgment Fund. In
addition to the transparency requirements, this bill prohibits
Judgment Fund payments to a state sponsor of terrorism or to a
foreign terrorist organization.
Background and Need for the Legislation
I. INTRODUCTION
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States
Constitution states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and
a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time
to time.''\1\ This clause, known as the Appropriations Clause,
establishes Congress's authority to spend public funds by
requiring that Congress pass an appropriation before funds are
paid out of the Treasury. The second part of the Appropriations
Clause, known as the ``Statement and Account'' provision,
provides Congress with ``plenary power to exact any reporting
and accounting it considers appropriate in the public
interest.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 7.
\2\See United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 678 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other public expenditures, the Appropriations Clause
applies to the payment of settlements and court-ordered
judgments against the United States.\3\ Prior to the creation
of the Judgment Fund, the payment of judgments against the
United States, as well as settlements by the United States,
required specific appropriations. In 1956, however, Congress
passed the Judgment Fund statute following a recommendation
from the General Accounting Office (``GAO''),\4\ which sought
to prevent problems related to delayed payment of court
judgments that included increased interest charges and
frustrated plaintiffs who had won an award, but were awaiting
payment.\5\ As enacted, this law provided an ``open-ended,
permanent appropriation for the payment of judgments of
district courts and the Court of Claims that did not exceed
$100,000.''\6\ Congress over time amended the statute several
times to cover more claims and to remove the statutory monetary
cap.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Paul F. Figley, The Judgment Fund: America's Deepest Pocket &
Its Susceptibility to Executive Branch Misuse, 18 U. Pa. J. Const. L.
145, 164 (2015)
\4\The General Accounting Office was later renamed the General
Accountability Office.
\5\Figley, supra note 3, at 161.
\6\Id. at 162.
\7\For an account of the Judgment Fund's legislative history, see
id., at 161-175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Judgment Fund ``constitutes an appropriation of
amounts sufficient to pay `final judgments awards, compromise
settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments
or otherwise authorized by law' when (1) payment is `not
otherwise provided for'; (2) payment is certified by the
Secretary of the Treasury; and (3) the judgment, award, or
settlement is payable'' under the specified authorities under
31 U.S.C. 1304(a).\8\ According to the GAO, the Judgment Fund
is a ``permanent, indefinite appropriation'' available for the
payment of ``court judgments and compromise settlements
negotiated under authority of the Justice Department.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-08-978SP, 3 Principles Of
Federal Appropriations Law 14-34 (3d Ed. 2008).
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF JUDGMENT FUND PAYMENTS
A. General Disclosure of Information
The Judgment Fund Section, which is a part of the United
States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal
Service, voluntarily maintains a publicly available database of
approved Judgment Fund payments called the Judgment Fund
Payment Search. This database provides the following data
fields: Defendant Agency Name; Docket #; Jurisdiction; Court
Jurisdiction; Defendant Agency File #; Submitting Agency File
#; Control #; Payment ID #; Payment Sent Date; Principal
Amount; Principal Citation Code; Principal Citation Code
Description; Attorney Fees Amount; Attorney Fees Citation Code;
Attorney Fees Citation Code Description; Cost Amount; Cost
Citation Code; Cost Citation Code Description; Interest Amount;
Interest Citation Code; Interest Citation Code Description;
Confirmed Payment Amount; and Reimbursable.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A user wishing to conduct a payment search using the
Judgment Fund Payment Search is required to enter a date range
and select from a list of agencies. In addition, the user is
provided with three optional search fields. A user may select
one of the following four Citation Code and Description Types:
Principal; Attorney's Fees; Costs; and Interest. Once a
selection is made, the user may also select from a list of U.S.
Code citations that correspond to the selection type.
The last optional search field allows a user to search for
payment by amounts equal to, less than, or greater than a user-
provided amount, or from a user-provided payment range. Under
this option, the user is prompted to enter payment amounts in
the following format: ``###,###.##.''\11\ No maximum searchable
amount is provided on the webpage. However, a sample search of
payment amounts less than $999,999,999.99 produced an error
message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Judgment Fund Payment Search, available at https://
jfund.fms.treas.gov/jfradSearchWeb/JFPymtSearchAction.do (lasted
visited Oct. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information displayed on the Judgment Fund Payment
Search, according to the Judgment Fund Section's website, ``is
for the purpose of tracking the status of approved Judgment
Fund payments only.''\12\ The website expressly advises that it
should not be used by federal agencies for ``accounting and
auditing purposes.'' Moreover, the Judgment Fund Section
maintains a separate administrative process called the Judgment
Fund Internet Claims System (JFICS) for federal agencies
submitting requests for payments from the Judgment Fund
electronically.\13\ Access to JFICS requires a username and
passcode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id.
\13\Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/
pmt/jdgFund/judgementFund_home.htm (last visited Oct. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Judgment Fund Section also produces annual
congressional reports.\14\ These reports are organized
alphabetically by the agency name, and contain the following
fields: Defendant Agency Name; Submitting Agency Name; Control
Number; Plaintiff's Counsel; Payment ID; Payment Sent Date;
Confirmed Payment Amount; Principal Amount; Principal Citation
Code; Principal Citation Code Description; Attorney Fees
Amount; Attorney Fees Citation Code; Attorney Fees Citation
Code Description; Cost Amount; Cost Citation Code; Cost
Citation Code Description; Interest Amount; Interest Citation
Code; and Interest Citation Code Description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/
pmt/jdgFund/congress-reports.htm (last visited Oct. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, not all relevant information is made publicly
available by the Department of the Treasury. Specifically, the
Judgment Fund Section website states that the Plaintiff's
Counsel field is ``optional and is not always provided by the
submitting agency in part because not every claimant has legal
representation.''\15\ Moreover, the names of plaintiffs or
claimants are not publicly disclosed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Recipient Names and Individual Attorneys
As articulated in the testimony of Professor Paul Figley in
a hearing held by the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Civil Justice on September 7, 2016, the exclusion of recipient
names and individual attorneys decreases the transparency of
specific payments. In response to a question submitted for the
hearing record, Professor Figley stated:
The Department of the Treasury has been aggressive in
withholding names of people and individual attorneys
who receive Judgment Fund payments. Those names are not
published on Treasury's on-line spreadsheets. The
Bureau of Fiscal Services' annual ``Judgment Fund
Transparency Report[s] to Congress'' spreadsheets . . .
contain a column for ``Plaintiff's Counsel,'' but not
``Plaintiffs''; many entries under ``Plaintiff's
Counsel'' are blank or contain ``(REDACTED FOR
PRIVACY).'' The Bureau of Fiscal Services' ``Judgment
Fund Payment Search'' on-line spreadsheet . . . does
not contain columns for ``Plaintiffs'' or ``Plaintiff's
Counsel.''
When Treasury produces Judgment Fund transmittal
documents in response to Freedom of Information Act
requests, it provides copies of court documents that
show each case's docket number and court. Treasury
deletes from those court documents the names of
individuals and individual attorneys . . .
In his written testimony, Professor Figley argues that the
Department of Treasury's practice of withholding case names,
claimant names, and fact summaries from the Judgment Fund
databases produces irregularities in aggregating claims given
that information about some claims, particularly matters in
litigation, are publicly available on a case by case basis to
anyone who knows the parties' names or the docket number.\16\
Indeed, the Judgment Fund Payment Search includes a ``Docket
#'' field. With the docket number alone, a person seeking
information about a specific case would likely have access to
all the information the Department of the Treasury is
withholding under its current policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id. at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Iran Settlement
In January 2016, it was reported that the United States
agreed to pay $1.7 billion to Iran, a designated state sponsor
of terrorism since 1984, as a result of a settlement arising
from the sale of military equipment prior to the 1979 Iranian
revolution.\17\ In August 2016, the Wall Street Journal
reported that $400 million of the $1.7 billion total was
secretly paid in cash.\18\ This report and other inquiries
raised questions about the source from which the remaining $1.3
billion was paid as well as the method and manner in which it
was transferred to Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Laura Koran, U.S. to pay Iran $1.7 billion in legal settlement,
CNN (Jan. 17, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-
iran-1-7-billion/.
\18\Jay Solomon, U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed,
Wall St. J. (Aug. 3, 2016), https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-
to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 22, 2016, the N.Y. Sun reported that while
conducting a query, but fruitless, search of ``Iran'' on the
Treasury database since January 2016, a search of the
``Department of State'' as a defendant agency had turned up 13
payments totaling $1,299,999,999.87, an amount thirteen cents
less than $1.3 billion, as well as an additional payment of
just over $10 million.\19\ These payments, according to the
N.Y. Sun, ``were all made on the same day, all sharing the same
file and control reference numbers, all certified by the U.S.
Attorney General, but each assigned a different identification
number.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Claudia Rosett, Riddle of $1.3 Billion for Iran Might Relate to
13 Outlays of Exactly $99,999,999.99, N.Y. Sun (Aug. 22, 2016), http://
www.nysun.com/foreign/riddle-of-13-billion-for-iran-might-be-solved-by/
89692/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The N.Y. Sun, however, could not confirm that these
payments were related to the Iran Settlement. More than eight
months after the settlement was announced, additional details,
such as the date in which the funds were dispersed, how the
funds were transferred, and in what form the funds had reached
Iran, were still unknown. According to N.Y. Sun, the State
Department ``refused to disclose even such basic information as
the date on which Iran took receipt of the $1.3 billion. As
recently as August 4[, 2016], a State spokesman told the press:
`I don't have a date of when that took place.'''
After increased public scrutiny, these thirteen payments
were later confirmed to be part of the Iran Settlement.
Nevertheless, hearing testimony submitted by the Honorable Eric
Thorson, Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury,
in March 2017, revealed that these payments recorded in the
Judgment Fund Payment Search did not reflect how the payments
were disbursed. Indeed, according to Inspector General Eric
Thorson, the Department of the Treasury:
did not disburse 13 separate payments of $99,999,999.99
and one payment of $10,390,236.28 as shown in the
results of the Judgment Fund Payment Search. Instead,
Fiscal Service processed a single claim from the DOJ,
the submitting agency on behalf of State. Because of
system limitations, DOJ divided the amount of this
claim into 14 smaller amounts in the Judgment Fund
system. These smaller amounts were then processed by
Fiscal Service through several information technology
applications and the requests were aggregated such that
only one payment of approximately $1.3 billion was
made.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Oversight of the Judgement Fund: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
the Constitution and Civil Justice of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
115th Cong. (2017) (statement of Eric Thorson, Inspector General, Dep't
of Treas.), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/
20170302/105620/HMTG-115-JU10-20170302-SD002.pdf.
Inspector General Thorson, after reviewing source
documents, further revealed that a ``single payment was made by
Fiscal Service through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(FRBNY) to De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) . . . DNB was provided
instructions to convert the $1.3 billion into Euro banknotes
and disburse up to three payments to an agent of Central Bank
of Iran (CBI) on or before specified dates.''\21\ Inspector
General Thorson also revealed that the reason the claim was
divided into 14 small amounts in the Judgment Fund Payment
Search is, according to Treasury officials, due to technical
limitations in the JFICS that ``prevents it from processing
requests over 14 characters in length.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Id.
\22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Judgment Fund Section's website now includes
information about how claims over $100 million are processed in
its Frequently Asked Questions page. It states that JFICS
has a 10 character limit in the payment amount field.
Therefore, if the claim you're submitting is for $100
million or more, you'll need to break the total amount
into smaller components, none of which may exceed
$99,999,999.99. You'll submit each of these components
into JFICS as a separate claim using the same claim
information for each component. Each of these
components will be assigned the same control number. If
you're submitting your claim by fax, you may submit a
claim for $100 million or more on a single set of
submission forms.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/
pmt/jdgFund/questions.htm (last visited Oct. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. THE JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY ACT
On February 15, 2017, Representative Chris Stewart
introduced H.R. 1096, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act of
2017. To increase government transparency of American taxpayer
dollars, this bill requires the Department of the Treasury to
disclose details after payments are made from the Judgment
Fund. Unless the disclosure is prohibited by law or a court
order, Treasury must disclose to the public on a website: the
agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or
judgment; the plaintiff or claimant; the counsel for the
plaintiff or claimant; the amount paid, a description of the
facts that gave rise to the claim; the agency that submitted
the claim; and any information available on reports generated
by the Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by Treasury.
If the payment is made to a foreign state, Treasury must also
disclose the following information: the method of payment; the
currency denomination used for the payment; and the name and
location of each financial institution owned or controlled by a
foreign state or an agent of a foreign state through which the
payment passed, from which the payment was withdrawn, or that
is holding the payment. The bill will also make public the
total annual amount paid for attorneys' fees, interest, and all
other amounts for all payments made from the Judgment Fund. In
addition to the transparency requirements, this bill prohibits
Judgment Fund payments to a state sponsor of terrorism or to a
foreign terrorist organization.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held one day of hearings on
H.R. 1096 on March 2, 2017, titled ``Oversight of the Judgment
Fund.'' Testimony was received from: Paul Figley, Professor,
American University Washington College of Law; Chris Jacobs,
Founder and CEO, Juniper Research Group; and Neil Kinkopf,
Professor, Georgia State University College of Law.
Committee Consideration
On June 28, 2017, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 1096, favorably reported, with an
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 1096.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.J. Res. 92, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 29, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1096, the Judgment
Fund Transparency Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jacob Fabian
who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
______________________________________________________________________
H.R. 1096--Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2017
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 28,
2017.
_______________________________________________________________________
H.R. 1096 would require the Department of the Treasury to
prepare certain reports regarding payments from the Judgment
Fund. The Judgment Fund has a permanent, indefinite
appropriation that is available to pay monetary awards against
the United States that are judicially and administratively
ordered. The legislation would require detailed reporting of
specific information for individual claims. Additionally, the
bill would prevent payments from the Judgment Fund to state
sponsors of terrorism and foreign terrorist organizations.
Most of the provisions of H.R. 1096 would codify and expand
on the current practices of the federal government. The Bureau
of the Fiscal Service at the Department of the Treasury already
administers a search system for payments from the Judgment Fund
that reports the name of the defendant agency, the legal
citations for each claim, and the liability amounts.
The legislation would add new requirements to report on
information that is not currently available, including the name
of the plaintiff or claimant and legal counsel, a brief
description of the facts that gave rise to the claim, and other
information on any payments made to foreign entities on or
after January 1, 2016. Based on the cost of providing similar
information, CBO expects that any administrative costs to
develop and add those additional reporting requirements would
total less than $500,000 annually; such spending would be
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting H.R. 1096 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 1096 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jacob Fabian.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 1096 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee finds that H.R. 1096 contains no directed
rule making within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 1096
is designed to increase transparency of American taxpayer
dollars and strengthen Congress's power of the purse with
respect to the Judgment Fund.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1096 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Section 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short
title of the bill as the ``Judgment Fund Transparency Act of
2017.''
Sec. 2. Judgment Fund transparency. Section 2 requires the
Department of the Treasury to disclose details after payments
are made from the Judgment Fund. Unless the disclosure is
prohibited by law (other than section 552a of title 5) or a
court order, Treasury must disclose to the public on a website:
the agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or
judgment, the plaintiff or claimant, the counsel for the
plaintiff or claimant, the amount paid, a description of the
facts that gave rise to the claim, the agency that submitted
the claim, and any information available on reports generated
by the Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by Treasury.
If the payment is made to a foreign state, Treasury must
also disclose: the method of payment; the currency denomination
used for the payment; and the name and location of each
financial institution owned or controlled by a foreign state or
an agent of a foreign state through which the payment passed,
from which the payment was withdrawn, or that is holding the
payment.
This section also requires that the total annual amount
paid for attorneys' fees, interest, and all other amounts for
all Judgment Fund payments be made publicly available. In
addition to the transparency requirements, this bill prohibits
Judgment Fund payments to a state sponsor of terrorism or to a
foreign terrorist organization.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1304. Judgments, awards, and compromise settlements
(a) Necessary amounts are appropriated to pay final
judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and
costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law
when--
(1) payment is not otherwise provided for;
(2) payment is certified by the Secretary of the
Treasury; and
(3) the judgment, award, or settlement is payable--
(A) under section 2414, 2517, 2672, or 2677
of title 28;
(B) under section 3723 of this title;
(C) under a decision of a board of contract
appeals; or
(D) in excess of an amount payable from the
appropriations of an agency for a meritorious
claim under section 2733 or 2734 of title 10,
section 715 of title 32, or section 20113 of
title 51.
(b)(1) Interest may be paid from the appropriation made by
this section--
(A) on a judgment of a district court, only when the
judgment becomes final after review on appeal or
petition by the United States Government, and then only
from the date of filing of the transcript of the
judgment with the Secretary of the Treasury through the
day before the date of the mandate of affirmance; or
(B) on a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit or the United States Court of Federal
Claims under section 2516(b) of title 28, only from the
date of filing of the transcript of the judgment with
the Secretary of the Treasury through the day before
the date of the mandate of affirmance.
(2) Interest payable under this subsection in a proceeding
reviewed by the Supreme Court is not allowed after the end of
the term in which the judgment is affirmed.
(c)(1) A judgment or compromise settlement against the
Government shall be paid under this section and sections 2414,
2517, and 2518 of title 28 when the judgment or settlement
arises out of an express or implied contract made by--
(A) the Army and Air Force Exchange Service;
(B) the Navy Exchanges;
(C) the Marine Corps Exchanges;
(D) the Coast Guard Exchanges; or
(E) the Exchange Councils of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
(2) The Exchange making the contract shall reimburse the
Government for the amount paid by the Government.
(d)(1) Unless the disclosure of such information is otherwise
prohibited by law or court order, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the public on a website, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 30 days after the date on which
a payment under this section is tendered on or after January 1,
2016, the following information with regard to that payment:
(A) The name of the specific agency or entity whose
actions gave rise to the claim or judgment.
(B) The name of the plaintiff or claimant.
(C) The name of counsel for the plaintiff or
claimant.
(D) The amount paid representing principal liability,
and any amounts paid representing any ancillary
liability, including attorney fees, costs, and
interest.
(E) A brief description of the facts that gave rise
to the claim.
(F) The name of the agency that submitted the claim.
(G) Any information available on reports generated by
the Judgment Fund Payment Search administered by the
Treasury Department.
(2) In addition to the information described in paragraph
(1), if a payment under this section is made to a foreign state
on or after January 1, 2016, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the public in accordance with paragraph
(1), the following information with regard to that payment:
(A) A description of the method of payment.
(B) A description of the currency denominations used
for the payment.
(C) The name and location of each financial
institution owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a foreign state or an agent of a foreign
state through which the payment passed or from which
the payment was withdrawn, including any financial
institution owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a foreign state or an agent of a foreign
state that is holding the payment as of the date on
which the information is made available.
(3) Not later than January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the
public on the website described in paragraph (1)--
(A) the total amount paid under this section during
the year preceding the date of the report; and
(B) the amount paid under this section during the
year preceding the date of the report--
(i) for attorney fees;
(ii) for interest; and
(iii) for all other payments.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``foreign state'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1603 of title 28.
(e) Except with regard to children under eighteen, the
disclosure of information required in this section shall not be
considered a ``clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy'' for purposes of title 5, United States Code.
(f) No payment may be made under this section to a state
sponsor of terrorism, as defined in section 1605A(h) of title
28, or to an organization that has been designated as a foreign
terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
H.R. 1096, the ``Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2017,''
would, not, contrary to its title, promote transparency and
would instead threaten the privacy of victims of government
misconduct who are compensated by the Judgment Fund. In short,
H.R. 1096 offers, at best, minimal benefit to the public at a
potentially tremendous cost to victims of government
wrongdoing. That is a balance we are unwilling to accept.
H.R. 1096 would require the Treasury Department, if not
otherwise prohibited by statute or court order, to
electronically publish information regarding payments made from
the Judgment Fund, which Congress created to pay legal
judgments against the federal government. Such information must
be made available within 30 days of the payment being tendered
and include personally identifiable information, such as the
plaintiff or claimant's name, the name of the counsel for the
plaintiff or claimant, and potentially sensitive facts
concerning the plaintiff's claim, including claims for sexual
harassment, medical malpractice, and race discrimination. The
bill would require the Treasury Department to disclose further
information about a claim paid to a foreign state and imposes a
number of other requirements and restrictions.
The primary concern with H.R. 1096 is that it overrides a
critical privacy protection under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).\1\ For the specified disclosure requirements, the
bill would override Exemption 6 of FOIA, which protects against
the disclosure of information that would constitute an
``unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'' In effect, the
measure's privacy override would require the Treasury
Department to bypass the Privacy Act of 1974\2\ and to publish
personally identifiable information, including the names of
plaintiffs or claimants and the basis of their claims, even
with respect to sensitive legal matters, paid from the Judgment
Fund. Notably, the bill's proponents have failed to articulate
any valid reason why such potential invasions of personal
privacy are warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 (2017).
\2\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons and others explained below, we must
respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to oppose H.R.
1096.
DESCRIPTION
The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation
enacted by Congress to pay legal judgments entered against the
U.S. government.\3\ Congress created the Fund ``to reduce the
need to allocate specific appropriations for payment of
claims.''\4\ H.R. 1096 requires the Treasury Department, if not
otherwise prohibited by statute or court order, to
electronically publish information on payments from the
Judgment Fund within 30 days of the payment being tendered.
This includes personally identifiable information, such as a
plaintiff or claimant's name, the name of the counsel for the
plaintiff or claimant, and a brief description of the facts
which gave rise to the claim. If the claim is paid to a foreign
state, the Treasury Department is required to disclose further
information about the claim and is subject to certain
restrictions on payments. Of greatest concern, section 2 of the
legislation would deem the required disclosures for adults over
age 18 to not be considered a ``clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy'' for purposes of title 5 of the United States
Code. As a result, the bill effectively overrides protections
against the unwarranted disclosure of personally identifying
information contained in FOIA and the Privacy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Vivian S. Chu & Brian T. Yeh, Congressional Research Service,
The Judgment Fund: History, Administration, and Common Usage 2 (2013)
[hereinafter CRS Report].
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1096
I. H.R. 1096 UNDERMINES FUNDAMENTAL PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
H.R. 1096 presents a serious risk to personal privacy.
Under current law and practice, the Treasury Department
withholds publishing the plaintiff or claimant's name, the name
of the counsel for the plaintiff or claimant if a solo
practitioner, and a brief description of the facts that gave
rise to the claim (which contains personally identifiable
information) in order to comply with the requirements of the
Privacy Act. The Department publishes this information in
accordance with a congressional directive included in a 2011
appropriations bill that, among other things, prohibited the
disclosure of this information if barred by another statute,
such as the Privacy Act, or court order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fully comprehend how the bill threatens personal
privacy, it is helpful to understand the interplay between the
Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 6. According to the Department
of Justice's Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974, the general
public policy purpose of the Act is ``to balance the
government's need to maintain information about individuals
with the rights of individuals to be protected against
unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal
agencies' collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of
personal information about them.''\6\ Specifically, one of the
four main policy objectives of the Privacy Act is ``[t]o
restrict disclosure of personally identifiable records
maintained by agencies.''\7\ The Privacy Act achieves this goal
by generally prohibiting federal agencies from disclosing ``any
record which is contained in a system of records by any means
of communication to any person or to another agency, except
pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written
consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless
the disclosure'' falls under one of 12 statutory exceptions.\8\
Most relevant to the operation of H.R. 1096 is exception 2, the
``required FOIA disclosure,''\9\ which permits an agency to
disclose a record if it would be ``required under section 552
of this title,''\10\ i.e., FOIA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Department of Justice, Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974
(2015) at 4 available at https://www.justice.gov/opcl/file/793026/
download [Hereinafter referred to as DOJ Privacy Act Overview].
\7\Id.
\8\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b) (2017).
\9\DOJ Privacy Act Overview at 74.
\10\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(b)(2) (2017).
\11\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, FOIA's purpose ``is to ensure an informed
citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society,
needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors
accountable to the governed.''\12\ FOIA serves the public
interest by promoting access to government documents in order
to reveal the inner workings of the federal executive branch
and better guard against the impropriety of government
officials. The Supreme Court, however, in interpreting FOIA has
long recognized that Congress intended to create a balance
between the public's right-to-know and ``the need of the
government to protect certain information.''\13\ Thus, under
FOIA, almost all federal executive branch records ``must be
made available to the public'' unless they are ``specifically
exempted from disclosure or specially excluded from the Act's
coverage in the first place.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act
Introduction (2013) at 1 (quoting NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,
437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)) (hereinafter DOJ FOIA Guide) available at
https://www.justice.gov/oip/doj-guide-freedom-information-act-0.
\13\Id. at 2 (quoting John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S.
146, 152 (1989)).
\14\Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, FOIA is structured to strongly favor disclosure of
government records, but balances this with the government's
need to keep some records from disclosure. An agency may
withhold information entirely only if either it ``reasonably
foresees disclosure would harm an interest protected'' pursuant
to one of nine exemptions or disclosure is otherwise prohibited
by law, and the agency must have considered partially redacting
the record if practicable.\15\ As such, an agency is also
required to take ``reasonable steps necessary to segregate and
release nonexempt information.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(8) (2017).
\16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the more commonly applied FOIA exemptions, and one
critical to understanding the operation of H.R. 1096, is
Exemption 6. This exempts from disclosure ``personnel and
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.''\17\ While personnel and medical files are somewhat
self-explanatory categories, the Supreme Court has held that
Congress intended that the term ``similar files'' be
interpreted broadly.\18\ In determining whether an agency
should withhold information contained in a record under this
exemption, an agency must identify whether ``both a substantial
(i.e., more than de minimis) privacy interest in nondisclosure
of the requested information and a FOIA public interest in its
disclosure (i.e., the information opens agency action to the
light of public scrutiny)'' exist and weigh ``the two competing
interests . . . against one another in order to determine
whether disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(6) (2017).
\18\DOJ FOIA Guide Exemption 6 at 4 (citing U.S. Dep't. of State v.
Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982)) available at https://
www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/
exemption6.pdf.
\19\Id. at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, when reviewing agency actions in light
of these two important and competing interests, has interpreted
the privacy interests protected by FOIA Exemption 6 to
``encompass the individual's control of information concerning
his or her person.''\20\ Additionally, the Supreme Court has
further stated that ``[a]n individual's interest in controlling
the dissemination of information regarding personal matters
does not dissolve simply because that information may be
available to the public in some form.''\21\ In other words,
just because information about a person may be available
through another public source, does not necessarily mean that
information is no longer covered by Exemption 6. Individuals
have a privacy interest in controlling the further spread of
this information. Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that
``the only relevant `public interest in disclosure' to be
weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would
serve the `core purpose of the FOIA,' which is `contribut[ing]
significantly to public understanding of the operations or
activities of the government.'''\22\ The Court further stated
that ``[t]hat purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure
of information about private citizens that is accumulated in
various governmental files but that reveals little or nothing
about an agency's own conduct.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\U.S. Dep't. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 763 (1989).
\21\U.S. Dep't. of Defense, et. al. v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 510 U.S. 487, 500 (1994).
\22\Id. at 495 (quoting U.S. Dep't. of Justice v. Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 775 (1989).
\23\Id. at 496 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the markup of H.R. 1096, Representative Ted Lieu (D-
CA) asked Chairman Goodlatte, ``Does this bill override the
Privacy Act with that section E provision or is it not meant to
do that?'' Chairman Goodlatte responded as follows:
The language you refer to was offered by a professor
who testified before the committee and according to the
Department of Justice's guide to the Freedom of
Information Act, under the FOIA privacy encompasses the
individual's control of information concerning his or
her person. Exemption 6 protects information about
individuals in personnel and medical files and similar
files when the disclosure of such information would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. In his written testimony, Professor Figley
stated that ``Treasury refuses to release the names of
claimants or individual attorneys under the Freedom of
Information Act on grounds that those names fall within
FOIA's exemption for personnel and medical files and
similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.''
This language was added to the amendment to prevent a
similar refusal to release the names of claimants or
individual attorneys under the requirements of the
bill. But I would again argue that that position taken
by the Treasury is not covered by the Privacy Act
because that information is not protected by the
Privacy Act; and in the interest of transparency, we
need to clarify that so that this information, moving
forward, is made public.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Transcript of the Markup of H.R. 2826; H.R. 1096; H.R. 2480
before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Jun. 6, 2017 at 174-175 available
at https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.28.17-
markup-transcript.pdf.
Respectfully, we believe that Chairman Goodlatte's analysis
was incorrect on two counts. First, the FOIA clearly protects
the names of individuals and other personally identifiable
information of Judgment Fund claimants in this instance, and
the Treasury Department properly withheld such information as a
``clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,'' because
releasing individuals' names or other personally identifiable
information would do little to serve the public interest in
shedding light on the internal decision-making process of the
many different federal agencies applying to the Fund for
payment of legal claims. We note that Professor Figley
acknowledged that, in its FOIA responses, ``the [Treasury
Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services] disclosed documents
that identified courts, docket numbers, underlying facts, the
names of plaintiffs who were not individuals, and the law firms
and lawyers who were not sole practitioners.''\25\ Given the
information that was disclosed, releasing individuals' names
would have provided little additional transparency about the
Judgment Fund's operation but imposed great risk to personal
privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Paul Figley, The Judgment fund: America's Deepest Pocket & Its
Susceptibility to Executive Branch Misuse, 18 J. Const. L. 145, 203
(2015) (emphases added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Treasury Department properly protected the
disclosure of this personally identifiable information exempted
from disclosure under the FOIA. The Department of Justice notes
that the purpose of the Privacy Act's exception 2 allowing
FOIA-required disclosures ``is that the Privacy Act never
prohibits a disclosure that FOIA actually requires.''\26\ The
Department further explains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\DOJ Privacy Act Overview, supra note 6, at 74 (original
emphasis) (citations omitted).
If an agency is in receipt of a FOIA request for
information about an individual that is contained in a
system of records and that is not properly withholdable
under any FOIA exemption, then it follows that the
agency is ``required under Section 552 of this title''
to disclose the information to the FOIA requester. This
would be a subsection (b)(2) disclosure. However, if a
FOIA exemption--typically, Exemption 6 or Exemption
7(C)--applies to a Privacy Act-protected record, the
Privacy Act prohibits the agency from making a
``discretionary'' FOIA release because that disclosure
would not be ``required'' by the FOIA within the
meaning of subsection (b)(2).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Id (citations omitted).
Generally, unlike FOIA, the Privacy Act favors
nondisclosure. Records or information contained in records that
are covered by the Privacy Act and subject to FOIA Exemption 6
are considered ``discretionary'' rather than ``required'' FOIA
disclosures. Thus, for example, the personally identifiable
information like individual names that Prof. Figley requested
is exempted from FOIA disclosure and therefore protected from
disclosure by the Privacy Act because it is a ``discretionary''
disclosure and does not fall under that Act's exception 2.
H.R. 1096 disrupts this careful interplay between the
Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 6 in all cases to which the
legislation would apply by overriding Exemption 6 and requiring
that the Treasury Department publish personally identifiable
information of all adult Judgment Fund claimants. Information
disclosures under H.R. 1096 would no longer be considered a
``discretionary'' disclosure under the FOIA's Exemption 6, and
exception 2 of the Privacy Act for ``required'' FOIA
disclosures would then apply. Thus, if H.R. 1096 were enacted,
the Privacy Act would no longer bar the Treasury Department
from publishing the personally identifiable information about
private individuals that it would have otherwise protected.
If enacted, H.R. 1096 would force the Treasury Department
not only to publish on the Internet personally identifiable
information, but to do so in a format that compounds the harm
by facilitating the spread of such information by linking the
claimant's name with the facts of his or her potentially
sensitive legal matter, simply because the settlement or
judgment related to that matter happened to be paid from the
Judgment Fund. A great range of legal claims are paid out of
the Fund, including claims that touch on particularly sensitive
personal matters, which may include cases concerning medical
malpractice and employment discrimination based on race or sex.
There could be serious consequences associated with the
disclosure of sensitive personal information under the bill.
For example, the revelation of a medical condition might hurt a
claimant's future employment prospects. Similarly, a victim of
race or sex discrimination might face difficulty finding work
because employers could see such a person as a legal
``troublemaker,'' rather than the victim of illegal
discrimination.\28\ Additionally, publishing personally
identifiable information on the Internet in an easily
searchable format could also make individuals more vulnerable
to fraudsters, data brokers, identity thieves, and other
predators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\The settlements of certain discrimination claims against the
government brought by Hispanic, Native American, and women farmers do
not provide justification for the bill. We note that simply because the
government admitted wrongdoing in discriminating against these
plaintiffs and other protected groups on an impermissible basis does
not alone demonstrate misuse of the Fund. The resulting settlement
payments from the Judgment Fund were entirely appropriate and should
not be the subject of criticism, much less cited as support for this
flawed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing a person's name alone would raise privacy
concerns in the Judgment Fund context. Certainly, publishing a
name in combination with the facts of a legal case is a
``clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'' and such
information should remain exempted from FOIA under Exemption 6
and, thus, protected by the Privacy Act. The Treasury
Department's current practice of withholding the individual
names of claimants, plaintiffs, their counsel if a solo
practitioner, and the other personally identifiable information
contained in a brief factual description comports with the
purpose of the Privacy Act and FOIA. Congress should not
override these protections for the purposes of this
legislation.
II. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WARRANTING H.R. 1096'S INVASION OF
PRIVACY
H.R. 1096 offers little additional transparency of the
Judgment Fund, but would violate the privacy of victims of
government misconduct. Much of the information that H.R. 1096
would require the Treasury Department to disclose regarding
non-foreign-state payments is already publically available. In
fact, the Treasury Department makes this information available
on the website of the Bureau of Fiscal Service, the agency
charged with administering the Fund.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\The information the Bureau currently publishes includes the
agency or entity whose actions gave rise to the claim or judgment; the
name of the counsel for the plaintiff or claimant if not a solo
practitioner; the amount paid representing principal liability; any
amounts paid representing any ancillary liability, including attorney
fees, costs, and interest; and the agency that submitted the claim. See
Judgement Fund Congresional Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Serv. (July 5,
2017), available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/
jdgFund/congress-reports.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, it appears that this legislation was
motivated, at least in part, as a response to the Obama
Administration's payment of a $1.7 billion settlement to Iran
out of the Judgment Fund as part of a negotiated settlement
over a longstanding claim related to arms sales involving the
pre-1979, pre-revolutionary Iranian government. Although the
proponents no longer appear to cite these payments as a
justification for this bill, we note that their arguments, at
any rate, lack credible support. The Obama Administration's
actions were entirely legal, transparent, supported by
precedent, and ultimately saved taxpayer money through a
reduced interest payment.
CONCLUSION
We recognize that there is a strong public interest in
knowing how federal taxpayer dollars are spent. Requiring the
Treasury Department, however, to disclose personally
identifiable information in a format that would reveal
information about private persons and their legal matters that
give rise to those payments does not sufficiently serve the
public's potential interest in such information as to justify
the infringement on individual privacy. Disclosing and
disseminating such personally identifiable information would
not significantly advance the public interests served by
transparency measures like FOIA, but would gravely threaten the
privacy interests of victims of government wrongdoing. H.R.
1096's proponents offer no convincing rationale for why we
should accept a balance so skewed against privacy. We think it
is the wrong balance, and we reject it.
For the forgoing reasons, we dissent and strongly urge our
colleagues to oppose H.R. 1096.
Mr. Conyers, Jr.
Mr. Nadler.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Swalwell.
Ms. Jayapal.
Mr. Raskin.
[all]