```

[House Report 115-348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



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]
```