David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the other thing that is very important to acknowledge here, and I think we have heard the Speaker say this--we have heard Senator Rubio make reference to this--is that the American people, I hope, understand that this is part one of a multipart story. Our Republican colleagues have made it very clear that this tax scam, this sort of giveaway to corporate America and the richest people in this country, is just part one. Next year, after you give away $1.5 trillion, unpaid for, you come back next year and you say: We have no money. We are going to have to cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut Pell grants, cut investments in healthcare, and cut investments in rebuilding the infrastructure of our country. So our Republican colleagues are setting this up as an effort to gut Medicare and Medicaid. Let's be clear about that. You can't give away $1.5 trillion that you don't have. And next year they are going to be heard to say: Geez, we have no money. We have to cut all of these programs that middle class Americans and working families rely on to survive and to prosper and to get a shot. And their answer is going to be: There is no money. And why isn't there any money? Because we gave it away to millionaires and billionaires and corporations and people who didn't need it. As a result of it, you are going to pay for it by cutting Medicare and cutting Social Security and cutting Pell grants. The immorality of this is stunning. So I think we have to not only defeat this tax scam, but call it out for what it is. This is an effort by our Republican colleagues to finally get what they want. I think our Speaker has said: I dreamed about it, or, I drank beer thinking about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. They call them entitlements. They are not entitlements. These are earned benefits that people get after a lifetime of hard work, of playing by the rules, of doing what is right. This is phase one of a multiphase plan which will hurt working people in this country, and we have to call them out on it.

Mr. CICILLINE. The gentleman is correct. They have already voted to cut $1.5 trillion to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country, to the biggest corporations; and in order to pay for that, they intend to gut Medicare and Medicaid and a whole range of other very important investments we make, that our country makes, in supporting and strengthening the middle class. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when, next year, as the gentleman said, the deficit hawks return in the warm weather to say: Oh, my goodness, there is no money. We are going to have to end the guarantee of Medicare. We are going to have to cut Social Security. We are going to have to eliminate or cut Pell grants. We are going to reduce all of these investments which matter so much to working families in this country. They are intent on doing that. They have tried to do it for the last several years, but not to the magnitude of success that they expect when they drain the coffers by giving away the money, which is exactly their strategy. And it is why we have to fight hard against this tax scam because it is not just a tax giveaway to people who don't need it. It is what it will do to the economy. I think there was a New York Times analysis of 38 economists. Not one, not any economist I have ever heard of yet, has said that this tax cut will pay for itself. We keep hearing our Republican colleagues: Oh, this is going to pay for itself. The economy is going to grow, and jobs are going to. It is a pipe dream. There is not a single economist, Republican, Democrat, Independent, who says these tax cuts will pay for themselves because, of course, they won't. Who will pay for them? The middle class of this country.

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, an important part of that is doubling the investment in apprenticeship programs, career and technical education, making sure we are creating pathways to produce better wages, better jobs for a better future. And the last thing families need, because the focus has to be on raising family incomes, is a tax scam that is going to raise their taxes. That is exactly the reverse of what most middle class and working families need. They need more money in their pockets, not less. And when I hear my Republican colleagues say: This is a tax cut for middle class, that is not true. For 87 million Americans, their taxes will go up. For many Americans, the deductions that they take will be eliminated, and 67 percent of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. So it is important, again, that they are trying to jam this through quickly because I think they understand that, if they don't, the more the American people learn about it, the less they like it, and the more they are going to attempt to stop it.

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Except if you are a corporation. They keep that deduction. So think about that. If you have to move to follow your job, you can't deduct that from your taxes; but if your company moves your job overseas, the corporations can deduct the cost of moving your job.

Mr. CICILLINE. A very distinguished colleague.

Mr. CICILLINE. Correct. Correct.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, one thing to remember there is that States that are investing in their infrastructure, investing in public safety, that are asking for local taxpayers to do their part, you punish them, and you incentivize States that are not making that investment. It is bad public policy.

Mr. CICILLINE. I started to interrupt. I was just going to say that, for young people, what this tax scam does is particularly damaging because it not only saddles the next generation with $1.5 trillion of debt, but in addition to that, it makes their cost of pursuing higher education more expensive. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to make it harder or more expensive for young people to go to college? We ought to be making it easier and more affordable, less difficult. Young people are already graduating with enormous debt, going to a tough job market in terms of what they can earn, and the Republicans are taking away the deduction so they can finance a tax debt for the richest people in this country.

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We just heard some of our other colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about the God-given right to apparently carry a concealed, loaded firearm across State lines. What about the God-given right to live, to stay alive, and to be free from gun violence in this country? We now have seen the two deadliest shootings in American history, 20 children slaughtered 5 years ago at Sandy Hook, and the list goes on and on. Our Republican colleagues will do nothing about it. They won't pass universal background checks. They won't pass no fly, no buy to keep terrorists from being able to buy a gun. They won't prevent bump stocks. But they are finally rising up to do something, and what is their answer? Let everyone in America carry a concealed, loaded firearm. Even people who are violent criminals, stalkers, and domestic abusers can carry a concealed firearm. Make no mistake about it. This legislation allows someone to go online. You don't have to be a resident of the State, a State that has no protections. You don't have to have training. You could be a criminal. You can go online and you get a permit in that State. You don't have to be a resident. You only have to go there, and you can then travel America with a loaded, concealed firearm and overrule the will of the people of that State through their legislature to impose responsible limitations on it. It also endangers police officers who can be sued for having the audacity to ask someone if they actually have a permit and detain them. They have a cause of action against the police officer and attorneys' fees--unprecedented. This is the response to a country that is pleading for responsible gun safety legislation, that is living with the carnage of gun violence and asking this Congress: Do something about it; protect us from this violence. Our Republican colleagues muster up the courage to pay homage to the NRA and make it easier to sell guns so that people can carry concealed loaded firearms all across this country. Shame on you. Shame on you. You have a responsibility to work with us to protect our constituents from gun violence and to enact sensible gun safety legislation that will reduce the incidents of gun violence. This will make it worse. The claim that somehow it makes it safer is refuted by all of the empirical evidence. You know it is. Shame on the Republicans.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle made a number of arguments about how, if everyone has a concealed weapon, America will be safer. Mr. Speaker, I have two studies here which directly rebut that: A 2017 Stanford University study found that in States that adopted the most permissive concealed carry laws, violent crime is 13 to 15 percent higher than it would have been had the State retained a more restrictive law; A 2017 study by researchers at Boston University found that States with shall-issue laws had a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate, consistent with the results of the Stanford study. Both of those empirical studies disprove the claim that we make America safer if everyone carries a hidden, loaded firearm.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, for yielding. I want to quote Congressman Raskin, who has said before, and I think it actually accurately captures what is happening: The Republicans are moving at the speed of light in the dark of night to jam through this proposal which will visit so much harm upon our economy and upon the American people, and particularly onto working families. I think it is important to say, at the outset, that the process that has produced this piece of legislation that is now under consideration in the Senate--their own version of the same proposal--is an important thing to understand. The last time that we did comprehensive tax reform--it was before I arrived in Congress--there were hundreds of people who testified. There were hearings to really understand the implications of these proposals. Our economy is complicated. Tax policy is complicated. You want to be sure that you are making the right decisions based on good information, good evidence, and the guidance of experts. This proposal in the House and, similarly, in the Senate happened with no hearings. Not a single witness testified. In fact, it was drafted even without the participation of some of the Republican Members of Congress. It was presented as a finished product and then brought to the floor for a vote. One of the reasons I would say, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are trying to get this done so quickly is because the more the American people learn about this proposal, the more they realize that it is not something they support, and it undermines the long-term health and prosperity of our country. What does it do? It provides a huge, gigantic tax cut for the people at the very top. About 50 percent of the proposal goes to the top 1 percent. It creates greater economic incentives to ship American jobs overseas. Think about that. It creates better incentives to send good jobs overseas. It raises taxes on 82 million middle class families. It imposes $1.5 trillion additional debt on the next generation. To pay for all of this, it imposes deep cuts on things that are so important to the economy and important to working families: Medicare, Medicaid. We will see more cuts in infrastructure, education, and all the things that are necessary to build and strengthen our economy. This is a gigantic giveaway to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest people of this country, and it is paid for by the middle class. It is paid for by hardworking Americans. There are, as I said just a moment ago, millions of people who lie awake at night worrying about whether or not they can make ends meet, take care of their families, and pay their bills because they are just not making enough money. But instead of addressing that with a real tax reform proposal that provides real tax relief to middle class families and incentivizes the creation of good-paying jobs, this does just the opposite. It makes the situation worse. In fact, what the bill does, although its name is something about job creation, it does just the opposite because it is premised on this economic theory called trickle-down economics: if you let people at the very top hold on to more of their money, keep more of what they make, it will somehow just trickle down to the rest of us. We know that is an economic theory that doesn't work. It doesn't work because what you really need to create jobs and to grow the economy is for people of the middle class to have a good-paying job and have money in their pockets so they can buy the goods and services businesses produce. That is how you grow the economy. If you go to any small business in my State and ask, ``What do you need to create another job to add to your number of employees?'' they will tell you, ``I need customers. I need people to buy the things I make and sell.'' That is why having a tax policy that invests in rebuilding the middle class and provides tax relief to middle class families and doesn't rely on this trickle-down economics is the way that you grow the economy. This does just the opposite. In addition to that proposal on the Senate side, they have inserted another proposal that will strip away healthcare from 13 million Americans. Think about this: Just when you thought this bill or this approach couldn't get any worse, the Senate Republicans have done that. We had a rally today with folks from all across this country who are standing up to say: This is not fair. This makes our Tax Code worse. This provides no relief for the people who need it. It doesn't help small businesses. Instead, it is a reflection of what a swamp Washington is. All those folks who have a lot of political power, who spend a lot of money on elections, have allowed or have demanded that a tax bill go forward that benefits them. Shame on my colleagues. This is a disgrace. What this is going to do to our economy and to working families is something that everyone who votes for this will be responsible for. We are still hoping that we can defeat this proposal in the Senate and move forward in a bipartisan way for serious tax reform that will grow the economy, that will provide relief to middle class families, that will help raise people's wages and not be a huge giveaway for the richest people in the country, the most powerful corporations, incentivizing shipping American jobs overseas and then giving the bill to the next generation and to working families in this country. This is dead wrong. We have to defeat it. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, for organizing this Special Order hour so we can continue to bring attention to this horrible piece of legislation, which, by the way--I will end with this--is not tax reform. This is a scam being visited upon the American people. We need to do everything we can to stop it.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans will lie awake in bed this evening worried about their ability to take care of their families because they simply don't make enough money and are struggling with the daily needs of life. What is the Republican Party working to do to make it even worse? Passing a tax cut for the richest people in this country, the most powerful corporations, that will result in raising taxes on 82 million families, providing $1.5 trillion debt for the next generation, making deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Pell grants, and infrastructure--all things that are necessary to grow and strengthen the middle class of this country--which will be a huge boon to the richest people in America. The Senate version will also remove 13 million people from having access to affordable healthcare. The Republicans in the Senate are doing this right now. The American people need to be certain that their voices are being heard to stop this proposal. It is a scam that will impose tremendous costs on working people in this country. It will provide tremendous benefits to the very powerful and very wealthy. It incentivizes American companies to ship American jobs overseas by making those incentives more generous. The American people deserve a better deal. They deserve better wages, better jobs, and a better future. They deserve a much better deal than this raw deal these Republicans are giving in this tax scam.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have gone too far. Their tax scheme gives $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires as well as wealthy corporations. It raises taxes on 36 million middle class families; makes deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, education, and infrastructure investments; and creates more incentives to ship American jobs overseas. Now they are planning to sneak in a provision that targets the heart of the Affordable Care Act and strips more than 13 million Americans of their access to healthcare. This is not a tax reform plan. It is a tax scam. Democrats and Republicans should be working together to fix an economy and a Tax Code that is rigged against working people. The American people need real tax reform that invests in middle class families, stops corporations from shipping jobs overseas, and protects Medicare and Medicaid and other vital investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, this bill does just the opposite. It deserves to be defeated, and the American people deserve a better deal.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by responding to the gentleman from Texas, who began this debate by saying how this was a continuation of an ongoing effort by Republicans to promote progrowth tax reform in particular. I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. The proposal that is currently before this House with respect to the tax changes is a tax scam. It is not a tax plan. It is a scam. It gives $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, the biggest corporations, and the millionaires and billionaires. It increases taxes on tens of millions of middle class families. It pays for this big gift back to corporations and billionaires and millionaires by deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, infrastructure spending, education--the things that actually create jobs. It creates additional incentives to ship American jobs overseas, creates incentives for American companies to take jobs here and ship them overseas, not to keep them here in our own country. It is another maybe more robust example of trickle-down economics. It has failed before. It will fail again. The American people might have the benefit of understanding this more completely if there were actually a process where this was debated, witnesses testified, and experts came in to talk about the implications of this. But this is being done in the dark of night, at the speed of light so the American people won't find out what is about to happen to them. So the idea of describing this as progrowth in this context, both with the provisions and the process, seems, to me, laughable. Let me just give the American people a couple of examples: It denies individuals the right to deduct State and local taxes but preserves that right for corporations; It denies the worker who is forced to leave his home and move because his employer is moving--either do that or he loses his job--from deducting the cost of moving, but it preserves the right of a company who is offshoring jobs overseas to take a deduction for the cost of moving those American jobs overseas. Those are just two examples. So this isn't a progrowth tax policy. This is trickle-down economics designed to let the people at the very top hold onto more of their money and corporations to keep more of their profits in the hope that it will trickle down to the rest of the American people. It doesn't work. It doesn't represent a progrowth tax policy. It is a tax scam, and so I want to just correct the record, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise, in addition to that, to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2201, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act. In light of the devastating 2008 financial crisis and the regulatory weaknesses revealed by the Wells Fargo and Equifax scandals, we should be considering legislation that will bolster consumer and investor protections; but today, instead, we are considering H.R. 2201, which will enable abusive financial practices. Generally, a company that seeks to make public offerings must register them with the Securities and Exchange Commission or must fit into one of several exceptions that are designed to balance investor protections with regulatory burdens on smaller companies. This legislation would allow so-called microcap offerings, offerings valued at $500,000 or less in a single year to be sold to 35 or fewer investors, subject only to the requirement that each investor have a substantive preexisting relationship with the company. Despite the similarity of these provisions to some restrictions currently imposed on unregistered security offerings, H.R. 2201 omits several critical investor protections that are characteristic of existing exemptions. In particular, microcap offerings would be exempt from important regulatory protections set up in the 1933 Securities Act, including registration, disclosure, and fraud protections. Oversight in the smaller offering space such as the one proposed in H.R. 2201 is important because the SEC has found fraud in the microcap stock markets is of increasing concern to regulators, as such markets have proven to be fertile grounds for fraud and abuse. Without core protections, H.R. 2201 would leave investors vulnerable to an array of investment scams and abuses, with unsophisticated investors particularly at risk. For example, the bill has no restriction on resale. In the past, failure to restrict the resale of unregistered securities has exposed secondary investors to fraudulent pump-and-dump schemes, as the gentlewoman from California mentioned. Additionally, groups like Americans for Financial Reform, Center for American Progress, and Public Citizen oppose H.R. 2201 because it would enable a type of investment scam known as affinity fraud. In these schemes, scam artists prey upon members of identifiable groups, such as ethnic or religious communities or the elderly, often by enlisting respected community or religious members to help convince victims that a dubious investment is legitimate. The proliferation of affinity fraud in low-income communities demonstrates that H.R. 2201's preexisting relationship requirement would not provide safeguards against such abuse. Given existing exemptions for smaller companies would provide ample opportunity for companies to raise capital while also protecting investors, H.R. 2201 is, at best, unnecessary. This bill would simply create a loophole that undermines protections against the kind of financial abuses and recklessness that we have already seen damage our financial system and hurt people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2201. I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, they are at it again. Corporate lobbyists and billionaires are spending whatever it takes to get their way in this town and avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile, working people who play by the rules are getting crushed by healthcare costs, childcare expenses, housing payments, and student loan debt. What is the Republican solution for this problem? A $1.5 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, and a tax increase for tens of millions of hardworking families. This bill is a scam. Republicans are throwing a wealthy five-star banquet for the wealthy and well connected, and saving a few crumbs that fall from the table for the hardworking middle class. Democrats know that American people deserve a better deal. That is why we are fighting to build an economy that ensures better jobs, better wages, and a better future; create 10 million new full-time, good-paying jobs; invest in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools; lower costs for everything from prescription drugs to childcare; and break up corporate monopolies that are raising costs and reducing choices for working families. Republicans might be fine with the status quo that benefits the wealthy and powerful special interests. We know the American people deserve better--better jobs, better wages--for a better future.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, right now, President Trump and the Republicans are trying to pass a massive tax cut for billionaires, millionaires, and wealthy corporations, and reward companies that ship American jobs overseas. The only way they can pay for it is by raising taxes on working people and cutting more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. This is not what Donald Trump, the candidate, promised the American people when he ran for President. He promised he would protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but it turns out that wasn't true. Wealthy Americans are doing better than ever. The top 1 percent are earning three times as much as they did 30 years ago, but working people haven't seen their pay go up at all. Let's get serious. Let's get working people a better deal that cuts their taxes. Let's get them a better deal that protects Social Security and Medicare. Let's not give tax breaks to companies that ship American jobs overseas. The American people deserve a better deal, not this raw deal that hurts working families.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1698, the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act. I was proud to cosponsor this critical legislation, and support it during consideration by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and would have voted for it on the floor, but had to leave Washington in order to attend a funeral service. This legislation makes it clear that the United States will not tolerate Iran's development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. It authorizes sanctions against Iran for development of these weapons, as well as foreign individuals and entities which provide aid to Iran in the development of such weapons. Further development of these weapons poses a threat to Israel, to our allies and partners in the Persian Gulf, and threatens to further destabilize the region. Additionally, failure to curb Iran's development of ballistic missiles could undermine the international effort to end Iran's nuclear weapons program under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I was proud to support this critical bipartisan effort, and would have proudly voted for it had I been present.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Elizabeth Chace. Lilly, as most people knew her, travelled around the world, but her heart was never far from her friends and family in Rhode Island. Lilly is remembered for her cutting wit, her love of movies, and her fierce loyalty to those she loved. She was a devoted fan of the New England Patriots, the Boston Red Sox, and her puppy Mona. The loss of her distinctive laugh, contagious joy and incredible generosity of spirit has shaken our entire community. To honor her memory, her family is asking that anyone thinking of her practice a random act of kindness and sing at the top of your lungs, in your car, with the windows down. A moving testament to a wonderful person. My heart goes out to Lilly's family, including her parents Arnold ``Buff'' and Johnnie, as well as her siblings Sarah, Ben and Nathaniel. On behalf of the people of the First Congressional District of the State of Rhode Island, I offer my most sincere condolences and deepest sympathy in this difficult time.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 469, an unwarranted and costly intrusion into Congress' powers under Article I of the Constitution that will undermine the enforcement of statutory deadlines. When passing laws, Congress routinely establishes mandatory deadlines for agency action. These statutory deadlines serve several purposes. They establish congressional priorities, attempt to reduce undue delay in an agency's compliance with the law, and communicate the importance of a legal requirement to the public. But because agency resources are limited, there is widespread noncompliance with statutory deadlines, as the Administrative Conference of the United States has long observed. Accordingly, a plaintiff with standing may file a lawsuit to complete a schedule for an agency to complete an action required by Congress, often referred to as a ``deadline suit.'' As the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported earlier this year, ``Most deadline suits are resolved through a negotiated settlement agreement because, in the majority of them, it is undisputed that a statutory deadline was missed,'' and there was no legal defense to the lawsuit. But proponents of H.R. 469 assert that these settlements undercut applicable administrative law and short-circuit review of new regulations. This premise is based on a report by the Chamber of Commerce that the so-called sue and settle process is increasingly being used as a technique to shape agencies' regulatory agendas. This concern, however, is unsupported by any independent evidence and has been debunked by the GAO. In two reports on deadline suits, the GAO has found that, ``the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rulemaking requirements,'' of the agencies it studied. In its December 2014 report on deadline lawsuits involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO determined that none of the settlements finalized under the Obama administration ``included terms that finalized the substantive outcome of a rule.'' The GAO underscored this point in the title of its report: ``Impact of Deadline Suits on EPA's Rulemaking is Limited.'' In its February 2017 report on deadline suits involving the Endangered Species Act, the GAO found that ``the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rulemaking requirements the agencies were to follow in completing the actions, such as providing opportunities for public notice and comment on proposed listing rules.'' Leading experts have also debunked the Chamber's sue and settle narrative. John Cruden, a senior career official at the Justice Department for more than two decades during two Republican and two Democratic administrations, testified on a substantially identical bill that he was ``not aware of any instance of a settlement that could remotely be described as collusive, but that the Justice Department vigorously represented the Federal agency, defending the agency's legal position, and obtaining in any settlement the best possible terms that were consistent with the controlling law.'' Other administrative law experts, such as Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, have similarly testified that sue and settlement allegations are patently false. This bill is also unnecessary because current law and agency practice already restrict the use of settlement policy to shape regulatory priorities. During its exhaustive review of deadline litigation, the GAO found that the Justice Department is guided by the Meese memo of 1986, when litigating deadline suits. This policy, as the GAO noted earlier this year, limits the settlement of a deadline suit to ``only include a commitment to perform a mandatory action by an agreed upon schedule and would not otherwise predetermine or prescribe a specific substantive outcome for the actions to be completed by the agencies.'' The Meese memo was codified in 1991, in the Code of Federal Regulations, and applies to settlement policy today. The Meese policy primarily restricts agencies from using settlement policy to contravene the law or congressional intent. As the majority noted in its report on a substantially identical version of the bill considered last Congress, this policy is grounded in separation of powers concerns. There is no evidence that agencies do not follow this policy, and the majority's witnesses in prior hearings on this proposal have been unable to provide examples of settlements that violate the Meese policies. H.R. 469 is also wasteful and undermines Congress' powers under Article I of the Constitution. Congress, not agencies, establish regulatory priorities through statutes. Agencies do not have discretion to pick and choose regulatory priorities where Congress has expressly instructed that certain actions be undertaken by a specific date. By imposing a series of onerous procedures that will constrain the use of settlements to resolve a Federal agency's noncompliance with the law, H.R. 469 erodes the constitutional function of the legislative branch. Finally, the bill is also costly. The Congressional Budget Office notes that this bill greatly lengthens the settlement process, costing millions of dollars and straining the Treasury's Judgment Fund through increased attorney's fees. In closing, I strongly oppose this measure. I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member, to control.