On the recordSeptember 7, 2016
First, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), of course, the National Council of La Raza would not like this legislation because the National Council of La Raza is the largest beneficiary of what the Justice Department is doing. They are getting the money. They are one of the largest recipients. So I am not at all surprised to hear that they wouldn't like us to stop this cozy relationship in which they go to the Justice Department and say, ``Hey, we need more money,'' and the Justice Department says, ``Okay. In the next settlement we do, we will send some of that money over to you.'' This is an abuse. It is clearly a slush fund, and it needs to be stopped. I prefer to focus on institutional concerns with mandatory donations rather than on the nature of the recipients. However, there is no ignoring the troubling May 19, 2016, testimony to the Financial Services Committee that the donation beneficiaries were ``Democrat special interests.'' These include the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a ``bank terrorist.'' Documents show that the groups that benefited from mandatory donation provisions actively lobbied the DOJ to include them. The bill's opponents have proffered a series of specious arguments. The principal ones I refuted earlier. The others I will address now.…





