On the recordOctober 24, 2017
This amendment undercuts Congress' power. It is another attempt to do so, and it should be opposed for that reason. It would exempt settlements that direct funds to remedy indirect harm resulting from lead in drinking water. It is a terrible problem. The amendment is forced to focus on indirect harm because nothing in the bill prevents remediation of direct harm. But settlement provisions addressing indirect harm are precisely why this bill is needed. The bill's guiding principle is that once direct victims have been compensated, deciding the best use of additional funds to address related problems--whether that is addressing indirect harms or otherwise--is, again, a policy question properly decided by elected representatives in Congress and not agency bureaucrats or prosecutors. We have proven the point. Last year, Congress actually acted on this. Congress appropriated $120 million to address drinking water problems in Flint, Michigan. If there is further need, Congress can make additional appropriations. The Department of Justice should not be permitted to augment those funding decisions entirely outside of the congressional appropriations and oversight processes because they are important to protect and preserve. Again, the spending power is one of Congress' most effective tools in reining in the executive branch, and we cannot afford to weaken that essential congressional power. Mr.…





