Overview
Title
To limit donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 788 is like a rule that says if the U.S. government makes a deal with someone to solve a problem, they normally can't ask that person to give money to other people; instead, all the money should go to the government unless it's helping fix something specific. The rule also asks the government to tell everyone how these deals work, but only for the next seven years.
Summary AI
H.R. 788 aims to restrict donations made through settlement agreements involving the United States. The bill prohibits government officials from entering or enforcing settlements that require payments to any party other than the United States, unless the payment is restitution for harm directly caused or compensation for case-related services. Additionally, the bill mandates annual reporting and audits of such settlements by federal agencies and their Inspectors General, without allocating additional funds for these activities. The reporting requirements will expire seven years after the bill's enactment.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023," aims to restrict certain practices related to settlement agreements involving the United States government. Specifically, it limits government officials from entering into settlements that require payments to any party other than the United States. Exceptions exist for payments directly addressing harm or for services linked to the case. The bill mandates that federal agencies report annually on such settlements and requires audits to ensure compliance. However, it prohibits additional funds to support these activities and includes a provision that sunset the reporting requirement seven years post-enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue is the ambiguity in key terms like "directly and proximately caused" and "services rendered." These terms lack clarity and specificity, which can lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement. Additionally, the bill includes a sunset clause that ends the reporting requirement after seven years. This could undermine transparency, particularly if questionable settlement practices develop beyond this period.
The bill also employs complex legal language that might not be easily understood by the general public, potentially reducing transparency and public engagement. Another concern is the limited scope of deterrents, as the bill relies on existing penalties without introducing new ones that might better discourage violations.
Lastly, the prohibition on additional funding for reporting and auditing tasks may constrain agencies, leading to potential resource inadequacies that could affect the thoroughness of oversight and enforcement efforts.
Impact on the Public
From a broad perspective, the bill's attempts to increase oversight of settlement agreements could bolster public trust in how the government handles its legal settlements. By ensuring that restitution genuinely addresses harm, it aims to uphold accountability and fairness.
However, the use of technical jargon and potential gaps in enforcement mechanisms might limit public understanding and confidence in the legislation's effectiveness. The sunset clause and funding limits might further erode long-term efficacy and transparency regarding these settlement practices.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For government officials and agencies, the bill may impose additional administrative responsibilities without the commensurate resources needed to fulfill them adequately. This could burden existing staff and strain operational efficiency.
Legal professionals and advocacy groups may view the bill as a step toward greater oversight and integrity in governmental settlements. However, they might also express concern over the vague language and the seven-year limitation on reporting, which could affect the bill's long-term impact.
Entities involved in settlements with the government could face stricter scrutiny regarding how their restitution is applied, adding complexity to their legal and financial planning. Conversely, organizations other than the U.S. government benefiting from settlement payments might find such prospects limited, aligning outcomes more closely with direct harm and associated services.
Overall, the bill is designed to enhance governmental accountability in settlement practices, but the lack of precise language, along with potential implementation challenges, may influence its capacity to achieve these goals effectively.
Issues
Ambiguity in Exceptions: Section 2(a) uses the terms 'directly and proximately caused' and 'services rendered,' which might lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the limitation on settlement agreements. This ambiguity is important for legal clarity and fairness in enforcement.
Potential Loophole with Sunset Clause: Section 2(e)(3) introduces a sunset clause that ceases reporting requirements after 7 years. This could reduce transparency and oversight over settlement agreements, especially if problematic practices occur after the reporting period ends.
Complex Legal Language: The usage of technical jargon like 'proximately caused' in Section 2 may not be comprehensible to the general public, thus diminishing transparency and public understanding of the legislation.
Limited Scope of Penalty Enforcement: Section 2(b) refers to existing penalties under section 3302 of title 31 but does not specify additional penalties or enforcement mechanisms, which might not be a sufficient deterrent against violations.
No Additional Funding for Reporting and Auditing: Sections 2(e)(2) and 2(f)(2) prohibit additional appropriations for reporting and auditing tasks. This could strain existing resources and impede thorough oversight and enforcement of the legislation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section titled "Short title" states that the Act can be officially referred to as the “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023”.
2. Limitation on donations made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the united states is a party Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section restricts government officials from agreeing to settlements that require payments to anyone other than the United States unless the payment addresses actual harm or is for services related to the case. It mandates annual reports and audits on such settlements, forbidding extra funding for these tasks, and notes that the reporting requirement will end seven years after the Act's enactment.