On the recordOctober 25, 2017
Although H.R. 469 has many flaws, I am particularly concerned that the bill's broad and ill-defined requirements would effectively delay and possibly deter civil enforcement agencies from providing general relief in discrimination cases, discourage courts from enforcing these settlements, and also invite costly and needless litigation. In response to this problem, my amendment would simply exclude from the bill's burdensome requirements settlement agreements and consent decrees intended to remediate generalized harms in civil rights cases. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment, and I urge my colleagues here to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). The amendment was rejected. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 115-363.
