79–006 

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 

2 

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 acVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:55 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR348.XXX HR348
3 

1 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. 

2See United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 678 (1974). 3Paul F. Figley, The Judgment Fund: America’s Deepest Pocket & Its Susceptibility to Executive Branch Misuse, 18 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 145, 164 (2015) 4The General Accounting Office was later renamed the General Accountability Office. 

5Figley, supra note 3, at 161. 6 Id. at 162. 7For an account of the Judgment Fund’s legislative history, see id., at 161–175. 

tions 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

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

4 

8 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–08–978SP, 3 Principles Of Federal Appropriations 

Law 14–34 (3d Ed. 2008). 9 Id. 

10See id. 11 Judgment Fund Payment Search, available at https://jfund.fms.treas.gov/jfradSearchWeb/ 

JFPymtSearchAction.do (lasted visited Oct. 11, 2017). 12 Id. 

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

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

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. 

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 adVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:55 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR348.XXX HR348
5 

13 Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/jdgFund/ 

judgementFund_home.htm (last visited Oct. 11, 2017). 14 Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/jdgFund/congress-reports.htm 

(last visited Oct. 11, 2017). 15 Id. 

ministrative 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. 

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. 

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. 

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, claimVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:55 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR348.XXX HR348
6 

16 Id. at 18–19. 17Laura 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. 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-foriran-might-be-solved-by/89692/. 

ant 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. 

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. 

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.’’ 

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: 

7 

20Oversight 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. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/pmt/jdgFund/questions.htm (last 

visited Oct. 12, 2017). 

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

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

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

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 

8 

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: 

9 

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 onbudget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

10 

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 forVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:55 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR348.XXX HR348
11 

eign 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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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 

12 

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)— 

13 

1 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2017). 

2 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2017). 

(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 

14 

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. 

5 CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14. 6Department 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]. 

valid reason why such potential invasions of personal privacy are 

warranted. 

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. 

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

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 

15 

7 Id. 

8 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (2017). 

9DOJ Privacy Act Overview at 74. 

10 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2) (2017). 11 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2017). 12Department 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. 15 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8) (2017). 16 Id. 17 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2017). 

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

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

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

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 ‘‘simiVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:55 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR348.XXX HR348
16 

18DOJ 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. 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). 

lar 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

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

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 

17 

24Transcript 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. 25Paul Figley, The Judgment fund: America’s Deepest Pocket & Its Susceptibility to Executive 

Branch Misuse, 18 J. Const. L. 145, 203 (2015) (emphases added). 26DOJ Privacy Act Overview, supra note 6, at 74 (original emphasis) (citations omitted). 27 Id (citations omitted). 

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

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. 

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: 

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 Actprotected 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

18 

28The 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. 

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. 

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 

19 

29The 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. 

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

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. 

20 

MR. COHEN. MR. JOHNSON, JR. MR. GUTIE ́ RREZ. MR. RICHMOND. MR. JEFFRIES. MR. CICILLINE. MR. SWALWELL. MS. JAYAPAL. MR. RASKIN. 

Æ