Bill Overview
Title: Safeguarding Awards for Victims and Enforcement Settlements Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the federal government from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States that provides for a payment to any person or entity other than the United States that is not a party to a dispute. The bill provides exceptions to allow certain payments, including those that (1) remedy actual harm (including to the environment) caused by the party making the payment, and (2) constitute a payment for services rendered in connection with the case.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by federal settlement agreements
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill impacts legal entities involved in settlements with the federal government, ensuring that only parties to a dispute receive settlement money.
- Victims who are third-party beneficiaries of settlement agreements may not receive payments directly, unless certain conditions are met.
- Entities making payments in a settlement may see changes in how funds are distributed or used.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals and entities engaged in settlement agreements with the federal government, particularly those receiving funds as third-party beneficiaries. Without the ability to pay non-party beneficiaries directly, some victims might not receive compensation unless through specific exceptions. We consider variations like locality, type of settlement, and income level to simulate a diverse range of impacts.
- A budget cap necessitates focusing on cases where the impact on personal wellbeing is significant. However, not all individuals will be substantially affected either positively or negatively based on their direct involvement with settlement funds or services tied to settlements.
- Victims expecting monetary settlements as a means of recompense may feel disadvantage if funds cannot be allocated to them directly under certain conditions.
- The impact varies depending on how often individuals interact or depend on federal settlements. For the simulations, likely impacts range from none to high.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might limit my ability to secure settlement funds for environmental reclamation projects that serve the public good.
- I believe funds should go directly to solve the problems caused, even if they affect non-disputing parties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about the policy's potential to reduce access to necessary funds for our business recovery from environmental damages.
- Support for direct victim compensation seems vital.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Social Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen many families benefit significantly from third-party settlement payments. This policy could restrict much-needed support for them.
- The exceptions seem narrow, potentially limiting effective aid distribution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
CEO of a Manufacturing Company (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could reduce our need to allocate funds to settlements with third-party beneficiaries.
- Aligns well with my view that compensation should be for parties directly involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy will impede projects that indirectly benefit the environment and communities who may not otherwise get properly compensated.
- Provisions for environment-related settlements seem minimal under this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Government Attorney (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will streamline settlement processes, but might limit compensation opportunities in broader community projects.
- Expectation was there'd be room for more direct resolution of harms beyond disputing parties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Agricultural Worker (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without these funds coming to our community, it would be harder for us to continue to handle health issues related to past pollution.
- We usually depend on third-party settlements for assistance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Nonprofit Director (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are deeply reliant on intermittent settlement payouts for our funding.
- Policy limits could drastically affect our operations, needing reassessment on how we sustain projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 10 |
Corporate Lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is imperative settlements remain directed as closely as possible to resolving disputes or providing direct victim compensation.
- This policy will likely encourage more straightforward settlement processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Environmental Scientist (Detroit, MI)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Settlement-funded restoration projects have been vital for ecological balance in affected regions.
- The new policy might undercut funding sources for projects not directly involved in the dispute.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily alters the distribution of settlement funds rather than creating new fiscal obligations.
- Potential legal challenges or renegotiations of existing settlements to adhere to new policy requirements.
- Impacts on deterrence and compliance if settlement changes present leniency or loopholes.