PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 24, 2017
Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill prohibits government officials from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States (resolving a civil action, a plea agreement, a deferred prosecution agreement, or a nonprosecution agreement) that provides for a payment or a loan to any person or entity other than the United States. The bill provides exceptions to allow payments or loans that: (1) remedy actual harm (including to the environment) caused by the party making the payment or loan and suffered by the payee, or (2) constitute a payment for services rendered in connection with the case or a payment that a court may order for restitution to victims in certain criminal cases or other persons in plea agreements.
Amounts remaining after all claims have been satisfied must be repaid proportionally to each party who contributed to the original payment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Government officials or agents who violate this prohibition may be removed from office or required to forfeit to the government any money they hold for such purposes to which they may otherwise be entitled.
Federal agencies must report annually for seven years to the Congressional Budget Office about the parties, funding sources, and distribution of funds for their settlement agreements permitted by the exceptions in this bill.
Agency inspectors general must report annually to Congress about any of their agency's settlement agreements that violate this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 238 - 183 (Roll no. 580). (text: CR H8118)
House roll call 580 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 238 - 183 (Roll no. 580).(text: CR H8118)
House roll call 580 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 732.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Conyers amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Conyers demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Conyers amendment No. 6.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Cicilline amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Cicilline demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cicilline amendment No. 5.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson Lee demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment No. 4.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Johnson (LA) demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Cohen amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Johnson (LA) demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Cohen amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 577, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Goodlatte amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 732.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Frank D. Lucas to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 577 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 469 and H.R. 732. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. Rule provides for one hour of general debate for H.R. 469. The rule also provides for consideration of amendments printed in part A of the report. The rule provides for one hour of general debate for H.R. 732. The rule provides for consideration of amendments printe in part B of the report.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 577. (consideration: CR H8107-8129)
Rule H. Res. 577 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 577 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 469 and H.R. 732. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. Rule provides for one hour of general debate for H.R. 469. The rule also provides for consideration of amendments printed in part A of the report. The rule provides for one hour of general debate for H.R. 732. The rule provides for consideration of amendments printe in part B of the report.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 43.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-72.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-72.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.732 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.732 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.732 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.732 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.