[Pages H654-H663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 122,
I call up the bill (H.R. 77) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of
disapproval for ``midnight rules'', and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 77

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL
PERTAINING TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

(a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under
paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain
one or more such rules if the report under subsection
(a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the final
year of a President's term.''.
(b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the
following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this
subsection)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a
joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after
the resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule
submitted by the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by
the __ relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in and
additional clauses describing additional rules to be included
as necessary).''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

General Leave

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 77.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules Relief
Act. This piece of legislation will allow Congress to efficiently
oversee Federal agency rulemaking.
Under the Congressional Review Act, known as the CRA, executive
agencies must report all promulgated rules to both Chambers of
Congress. The CRA gives Congress, then, the authority to pass joint
resolutions to prevent agency rules from taking effect. The CRA's
disapproval mechanism gives Congress a check on Federal administrative
overreach.
Currently, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a separate joint
resolution for each agency rule it seeks to review. This limit slows
Congress' oversight of agency rulemaking.
Its inefficiency is most clear during the midnight rulemaking period
of the last year of a President's term, when executive agencies
historically issue more regulations than any other time in a
President's term.
The 119th Congress can examine Biden administration rules that fall
within the CRA lookback window. This window includes any rule submitted
to Congress from August 16, 2024, to the end of the Biden
administration.
During that period, the Biden administration finalized a staggering
1,406 rules.
H.R. 77 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this
midnight rulemaking period.
The Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to introduce joint
resolutions considering multiple agency rules during the final year of
a President's term.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that this bill
is only an attempt to slow down agency rulemaking, but that is
incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill that are designed to
slow down rulemaking.
Rather, this bill would merely allow Congress to more efficiently
exercise the oversight authority it already has and respond to the
influx of agency regulations during the midnight hours of the
President's final term.
My colleagues would also like Americans to believe that this is an
effort to repeal every regulation submitted to Congress. Again, that is
inaccurate. After reviewing submitted regulations, Congress can pick
and choose which rules to overturn, just as we do now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H655]]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the gentleman's bill is not to give
Congress the power to undo midnight rules because Congress already has
that power.
Under the Congressional Review Act, House Republicans can go to the
floor this week, and they can try to undo every single regulation that
was issued by the Biden administration from August of last year to
Inauguration Day.
What does their bill do? It would allow the majority to roll up lots
of midnight regulations and lots of others, too, including what you
might call twilight, midday, and early morning regulations--indeed, all
of the regulations adopted in the final 365 days of the prior
administration, an entire year that takes place at midnight. All the
regulations adopted in the last year could be tied together into a
bundle, wrapped up together in a giant bunch, and then voted down as a
single jumbo resolution.
This tactic could be used to try to get Congress to eliminate no
fewer, by my count, than 355 major regulations from the last year of
Joe Biden in one fell swoop, forcing every Member to vote either to
sustain all of the regulations or to overturn and destroy all of them.
By destroying them, that means the agencies could not try to promulgate
similar regulations in the future without an act of Congress.
This would allow Trump's enablers and the sheeplike new Elon
Muskovites in Congress to obliterate hundreds of completely diverse and
unrelated regulations in one fell swoop. These are regulations that
were adopted over the last year: Everything from removing lead from
drinking water to making cell phones compatible with hearing aids to
creating safety standards for infant bath seats to implementing the
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that 43 States have constitutional or
statutory single-subject rules for policy legislation initiatives and
referenda is because voting on completely different subjects at the
same time is a moronic way to govern and an invitation to political
manipulation of the will of the people.
What is a Member to do if he or she strongly approves of, say,
overturning 20 percent of these rules but strongly opposes overturning
80 percent of them? This weird dilemma makes us ask why we would even
want to force such a choice. After all, the vast majority of America
rejects this whole concept.
Well, the obvious purpose of this bizarre legislation is to get
Republicans to vote to repeal extremely popular, commonsense
regulations but then try to enable them to escape the political
consequences of doing so.
Consider some of the Biden administration regulations which they
would tuck into this monstrosity, omnibus midnight relief resolution
and decide if you are willing to vote to overturn them, even if they
are tucked in with some infamous washing machine regulation they love
talking about.

Consider this one from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It
cuts credit card late fees from an average of $32 to $8, meaning your
credit card company cannot charge you more than $8 for late fees
because the CFPB brought a suit and determined that is the whole
administrative cost of a late fee. It didn't say the credit card
companies couldn't charge anything, but it said when they are charging
you $32, that is just a rip-off.
Now, our friends on that side of the aisle want to repeal this
regulation because they insist it violates their precious laissez-faire
principle. That is, let the credit card companies do whatever they
want, but when it comes to leaving middle-class and working-class
consumers to the mercy of gigantic credit card companies, my friends,
laissez isn't fair. At least that is what the Democrats think, and we
will stand up for this regulation.
If you think the credit card companies should be restored their power
to charge whatever they want for late fees, way beyond their actual
administrative expenses, then by all means support the Republicans'
bill. Elon Musk and the billionaires will love you for it. Musk did,
after all, just sign an agreement with Visa for his X wallet.
Another rule Republicans could add to their giant bundle is from the
Department of Transportation, which requires airlines to provide
automatic refunds when your flight is canceled and to disclose upfront
baggage and flight change fees.
It used to be they could cancel your flight and just say they will
give you another flight in the future at some point. The Department of
Transportation determined that is not fair. If they cancel your flight,
you get a refund. If you want to fly later or go take a train or find
another mode of transportation, you can do it.
Now, they could throw that into the big bonfire of regulation
destruction they are so excited about, and then you could consign your
rights back to the microscopic fine print on the back of your airplane
ticket rather than having the consumer champions at the Department of
Transportation try to stand up for the people.
If you want the airlines to have that power over you, go ahead and
vote for the GOP bill, support more laissez-faire for the billionaires.
Strike a blow against the reviled Bidenomics. Give yourself all the
airline inconvenience you want.
Another rule that they would throw in is the FTC's wildly popular
click-to-cancel rule mandating that it should be just as easy to cancel
a service advertised online as it is to sign up for it. The American
people love that, right? Do you want to go back to the days when it was
as easy as A-B-C-1-2-3 to sign up for an online service but then like
the 12 labors of Hercules to try to get out of it when you no longer
need it, then by all means support this great laissez-faire Republican
bill. Strike a blow against the big, bad, evil, mean, wicked, terrible
regulations.
If you fall for all that propaganda, and you are more afraid of the
big, bad, evil regulations than the big, bad, evil corporations, go
ahead and vote for it. The unelected billionaire bureaucrat and his
nameless, faceless, racist, junior bureaucrats in the Muskovite
nighttime wrecking ball crew will be thrilled if you vote for it.
Another rule that is up for reversal is the CFPB regulation capping
bank overdraft fees at $5. My constituents in Maryland, who might not
be as rich as some of the constituents over on the other side, were
getting overdraft charges of $35. They didn't like that, so they
support the CFPB regulation capping overdraft fees from banks at $5,
which is at most what it costs the banks to process it.
That practice was costing American consumers, mostly young people,
mostly older people and working-class people, $5 billion a year.
Biden's new $5 rule, that is the max for overdraft fees. Excuse me. It
is not a rule. It is a dreadful regulation to cut overdraft fees by
more than 80 percent.

{time} 1545

Guess what? The banks didn't go bankrupt. They have never been
wealthier or healthier, with record profits in the last quarter, even
with consumer safety regulations, which we are supposed to be so
terrified about.
Go ahead and vote for the big banks, Elon Musk, and the Republicans.
Vote against your own interests. You can lift the $5 overdraft fee. I
would be interested in what the gentleman thinks it should be, $30,
$40? I don't know.
Finally, consider an HHS rule that you could be forced to vote for in
advancing the big omnibus package they want: a ban on junk health
insurance plans that rip our people off when they need healthcare the
most and are most desperate. That is an HHS rule, and the Republicans
say that that rule should be repealed because I guess the low-quality
health insurance companies don't want to rip you off, right? If you
believe that, then by all means, vote for the bill.
Instead of considering these regulations one at a time on their own
merits and then voting on them transparently and publicly, as current
law requires and as the vast majority of State constitutions and State
legislatures require, this Republican bill would give Congress the
power to wipe out all of these rules and hundreds of others in one
single, massive party-line vote, which completely pulls the wool over
the eyes of the American people.
Why do it? They haven't said. They just want it to slide through.
They want to throw all these excellent regulations, supported by the
vast majority of American people, in with a couple of regulations that
I have heard them talk about, when I asked them why they want to do it,
about washing machines. All right, say you don't like

[[Page H656]]

those washing machine regulations. Make your argument to Congress.
Let's debate it and discuss it, and maybe you will convince me. We will
give it an up-or-down vote.
Each regulation gets its own vote. What is wrong with that?
No. They want to flood the zone with confusion and treat the people
like sheep, not citizens. They don't want their constituents to notice
the damage they are inflicting on the public good.
When I first heard about this legislative rip-off, I actually wanted
to get in touch with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona,
Representative Andy Biggs, because I remembered that he was the proud
and impassioned sponsor of H.R. 91, which he introduced just a few
weeks ago, on January 16, 2025. It was a very impressive bill. Guess
what it is called? It is called the One Bill, One Subject Transparency
Act. Let me repeat that: the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act.
That is his bill. I love the fact that he has been fighting for that.
His bill ``requires each bill or joint resolution to include no more
than one subject and the subject to be clearly and descriptively
expressed in the measure's title.''
The midnight regulation kitchen sink bill would violate everything
that I thought Congressman Biggs believes about the legislative
process: Members should be voting on one subject or one regulation at a
time, not a dozen different subjects, not 100 different regulations in
a single resolution, and the title of the bill should indeed clearly
and descriptively communicate exactly what we are voting on, which
means one thing.
Amazingly, before I could get to find Representative Biggs to tell
him that we had to get together across party lines to stop this new
monstrosity I heard about, I was told by my staff that he was actually
the author of the Midnight Rules Relief Act.
I couldn't believe it. I was dumbfounded and gobstopped. The lead
sponsor of the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act was now
advocating this massive conglomeration of subjects and regulations, a
huge legislative stew, a gumbo where poison pills and healthy
vegetables are mixed up freely into one toxic, indigestible, and
incomprehensible meal.
It is amazing to me. This is the cynical tactic that I thought my
friends in the Freedom Caucus have for years been complaining about:
the passage of bewilderingly complex and inscrutable legislation
covering way too many subjects at once.
As Mr. Biggs' press release on his bill stated: ``Too often,
congressional leaders use `must-pass bills' . . . as methods for
passing laws that may have failed if considered on their own.'' I will
have some more to say about things that he has said about it in the
past.
He had a solution to all of these tactics of political dishonesty.
The One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act would require that every
bill considered by the House encompasses no more than one subject at a
time. Let me repeat that: no more than one subject at a time. If a bill
addresses two or more, then guess what? The bill becomes void.
I will stand up for that principle today that I thought once unified
us. Borrowing from his own statements, I have also proposed an
amendment to the Midnight Rules Relief Act. Using language taken
directly from his legislation verbatim, I propose that any resolution
we consider overturning agency regulations should be limited to a
single subject, and if the resolution attempts to nullify regulations
in two or more diverse areas, the resolution becomes, of course, null
and void.
The whole point of the one bill, one subject House Republican
movement led by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona is that
Congress should not be destroying legislative transparency or
accountability by shoving unrelated packages into a single moving
legislative vehicle.
By the way, please spare me any lame rebuttal that we don't have time
to actually do our jobs and hear each bill on its own, an argument that
my Freedom Caucus friends have rightfully shown contempt for when
raised in the past. If you want to repeal the $5 bank overdraft fee,
the clean water rule, or the click-to-cancel rule, be my guest. We have
all the time in the world to debate why you want to overthrow the $5
bank overdraft bill.
This week, the Republicans have brought a grand total of three bills
to the floor, I think it is. We had some procedural minutia and three
bills. We have nothing but time here. They have got no agenda.
Their whole agenda has been sidelined and supplanted by Elon Musk,
who I thought was the fourth branch of government. Now, he seems to be
the first branch of government, too, as my colleagues across the aisle
simply want Elon Musk to do their jobs. We have members in committee
thanking him for doing such great oversight.
Gee, I thought that Chairman Comer on the Oversight Committee was
supposed to be doing oversight. I didn't think we needed a new fourth
branch of government called Elon Musk to do that completely lawless and
reckless and replete with conflicts of interest, but I digress.
Twenty-four resolutions of disapproval of specific regulations have
actually been introduced in this Congress. Do you know how many of
those resolutions of disapproval have been taken up in committees of
jurisdiction? Zero. Do you know how many have been brought to the floor
of the House by my colleagues, who are so exercised about big, bad,
terrible, evil, and mean regulation? None of them.
They have not brought a single regulation forward. They have done
nothing on regulations with all the time in the world. Now, they want
to destroy every principle they claim to adhere to in terms of
legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives.
The truth is that these Republican politicians are terrified to
overturn these regulations in broad daylight. They know America
supports them.
They should show some courage. Stand up for your anti-working class,
anti-middle class, and plutocratic principles. Go ahead and vote to
destroy the $5 bank overdraft rule, but do it openly, do it clearly,
and do it one by one.
Take each one on. We will stay here with you all day. We will even
work a 9-to-5 day, something we haven't seen around here in a long
time. We will work 8 hours or 12 hours if you want to get into the
details of it.
Let's do our jobs for real. I dare you, all you single-subject
zealots out there, to oppose this embarrassing and humiliating Midnight
Rules Relief Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humor that came from the other
side of the aisle. It had me in stitches.
I don't really believe that the gentleman was chasing me around
because he wanted to sign on as a cosponsor of my single-subject rule.
He knows where to find me. I am in the committees with him. He could
have done it. He didn't do it.
What I do find is this is a problem for me because I had the
Democratic debate bingo card going, and I was feeling pretty good
because he did mention ``Elon Musk'' five times. He mentioned
``billionaire'' three times and ``unelected billionaire'' one time. I
had those on my card.
Words I didn't have include ``Muskovite,'' and I should have had that
because he used that in Judiciary Committee earlier today. I also
didn't have ``flood the zone,'' and I also didn't have ``gobstopped.''
I missed those on the bingo card for today.
I do find really intriguing his attempts to try to distract us from
what this bill does.
The last thing I will say here before I yield to my friend from
California is that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned omnibus bills,
these omnibus bills that have everything in them, and he called them
moronic. No doubt, I agree with him. The Inflation Reduction Act was
moronic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Kiley).
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Maryland, I would say that
one of the nice things about this bill that we are considering is that
it allows us--if there are any good Biden-era regulations out there,
they can

[[Page H657]]

stay--to simply choose to disapprove of the bad ones, of which there
are quite a few.
Then to this idea that we can't disapprove of regulations as a batch
because we need to have a debate over each and every one in this
rarified Chamber, I would point out that there was no debate at all in
this Chamber for any of those regulations when they were imposed by the
agencies. We had no role whatsoever. This act allows us to reclaim our
legislative authority and our role in the policymaking process going
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Midnight Rules Relief Act
because President Joe Biden went on a regulation binge in his last few
months in office. From August 1 of last year through the end of his
Presidency, there were 1,524 new regulations issued. This bill today
will allow us to press the reset button and to have a more considered
process for policymaking when it comes to all of these different areas
affected.
There are three main reasons I think that this is a good idea. The
first has to do with the nature of regulations themselves, the death by
a million cuts that is being felt by every industry and every sector
throughout our country. When it comes to energy projects to make our
country energy independent, when it comes to transportation projects to
make our roads safer and to alleviate traffic, when it comes to forest
management projects, when it comes to just about anything you can think
of, and when it comes to being a small business owner, the sheer weight
of regulation after regulation is making it unduly difficult to build,
grow, expand, empower people, hire, and move us toward the prosperity
that this country is truly capable of.
Secondly, there is a question of democratic legitimacy. When you have
a President who has just been rejected by voters, or in this case at
least he has chosen not to run again and his Vice President did not
succeed in getting elected, to then issue over 1,500 regulations is a
way of trying to lock in unpopular policies.
What this bill does, again, is it only affects new regulations in the
last year of one's Presidency. It prevents this sort of undemocratic
hangover effect, where new regulations are hastily thrown together in
order to block the change that people have voted for.
Finally, I point out that there is an opportunity for Congress to
reclaim its legislative authority. We have seen the administrative
state and the bureaucracies that issued the sort of regulations we are
talking about that have continued to grow and grow and affect American
life in new ways and more intrusive ways every single year. We have had
a few changes that have allowed us to reverse this decades-long
trajectory. Of course, there is the election of President Trump and his
commitment to rolling back regulations. There is also the decision from
the Supreme Court revisiting the Chevron doctrine.
This legislation adds to that mix. It gives us the ability to say
that we are not going to continue to outsource all of our lawmaking
authority to administrative agencies. Rather, when it comes to the core
of making policy that will affect the lives of Americans, we ought to
be very mindful of giving that away and allowing bureaucrats to do the
job that the American people have entrusted to us.
When we do that, we can reclaim the idea of self-government, that
policy is made by those who truly represent the people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for proposing this
legislation. I look forward to seeing it pass, and I look forward from
there on out to the newly empowered Congress being able to consider the
merits of those regulations and decide on much better policies moving
forward.

{time} 1600

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 77, the so-called
Midnight Rules Relief Act. Despite the bill's title, this legislation
is not really intended to address midnight rules at all. Instead, it is
nothing more than an effort by the Republican majority to advance their
antigovernment, deregulatory agenda under cover of darkness.
Republicans know that taking a series of votes making it easier for
corporations to undermine our health, safety, and economic well-being
would be deeply unpopular. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
don't want the public to know that Republicans care more about
corporations than consumers, so they want to package as many rules as
possible into a single resolution that would eliminate these rules all
at once, reducing transparency and obscuring the consequences.
This legislation would allow the majority to put dozens of critical
regulations issued by the Biden administration on the chopping block.
Republicans will talk all about the costs of these regulations, but the
majority will never talk about the benefits, like healthier children,
safer drinking water, and stronger consumer protections.
If my Republican colleagues really want to roll back regulations that
ensure the safety of bath seats for infants or create dust, lead, and
lead pipe safety standards, or update certain emergency braking
standards, fine. Let's have that debate out in the open. We can let our
constituents judge whether we took the right vote. Don't hide behind a
giant omnibus bill that obscures the consequences of the majority's
actions.
If we are truly concerned about so-called midnight rules, we have
other options to check them. For example, at the end of President
George W. Bush's administration, I authored a bill that would delay
implementation of rules issued near the end of a President's term,
giving his or her successor the chance to review such rules and to
determine if they should go forward.
I believe there are ways that we could work together in a bipartisan
manner to address this issue.
Where past efforts tried using a scalpel to address the problems
associated with midnight rulemaking, today's Republicans want to
instead use a machete, hacking away at the Biden administration's
regulatory agenda, putting all of the rules together in one vote, and
furthering their ideological goal of radically transforming our
government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have mentioned several
rules that Democrats particularly favor: bank fee regulation, maybe
something about lead pipe regulation, and drinking water regulation.
These aren't legislation. These are regulations.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: If you are afraid
to vote on them, you are going to stick them in this midnight rules
reversion.
This is what I would submit: When all legislative authority is
delegated to the bureaucratic agencies--Elon Musk isn't the fourth
branch of government. He is not. Scholars have said and written for 30
years about the administrative state effectively being the fourth
branch of government.
When my colleagues look at what scholars have said about that and are
delegating that, my Democratic colleagues should just fess up and say:
We are afraid. We are afraid to put the CFPB bill on the floor that
would reduce the fees. We are afraid of doing that because we might be
held responsible by our constituents.
That is what the minority is claiming that we want. In reality,
Democrats would rather have nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats
govern this country. That is what my Democratic colleagues want.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks at that, I find myself saying: If
Democrats want to preserve the separation of powers, it may be gone,
but we can actually reinstitute it. It is not three coequal branches of
government. That is not what the Founders intended.
The Founders are very clear in the Constitutional Convention that
Article I, that branch, which happens to be this branch, was meant to
be the most powerful, and why? It was closest to the people.
Why was that important? They wanted this group of people to be
actually bound to the people, be closest to the people.
When Members do what the Democrats want to do, which is to actually

[[Page H658]]

delegate it over to the executive branch and to the bureaucracies, off
to la-la land, and not really having an effective way to review it,
that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer
because it makes this body less accountable. Heaven knows, Democrats
don't want to necessarily be accountable.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats argue that the Midnight Rules Relief Act does
not allow for sufficient debate. That is one of the things we have
heard here, but the purpose of the Midnight Rules Relief Act is to
increase Congress' opportunity to consider and debate rules.
Since there was an influx of rules at the midnight hour, the last few
months of a President's term, which my colleague from New York just
mentioned, calling it, I believe, the Biden regulatory agenda, that is
what it is. It is the Biden regulatory agenda. It is not the Democrat's
elected official agenda, nor the Republicans. It is not these elected
officials' agenda. It is not even President Biden's agenda, except for
it has been done by a regulatory agency. My Democratic colleagues like
that over there.
Congress becomes overwhelmed when we have 1,400 or 1,500 of those
rules in the last few months. When Congress is overwhelmed like that,
it means that many agency rules are left unreviewed altogether by
Congress. It is not just some, but most. It is the vast
majority, without a single second or an iota of debate by the elected
officials.

America is being governed by unelected bureaucrats. That is who is
governing America. The Midnight Rules Relief Act increases the
opportunity for Congress to debate agency rules by allowing Congress to
consider more than one rule at a time.
This allows agency rules, that would not otherwise receive any
debate, to be debated in Congress. Take back the unelected bureaucrats'
authority and put it in the hands of the people who have been elected.
Why is that important? We are meant to be accountable to the people.
The reason that the House had the purse strings added to it is because
we were closest to the people. We are meant to be more accountable to
the people.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, the States had their authority and their
rights preserved and protected by the U.S. Senate, but now the U.S.
Senate is just a bunch of glorified national politicians.
What I would suggest is, if Congress wants to take back the
legislative authority and actually have people who are accountable,
then the Midnight Rules Relief Act needs to be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs) just said that I agree with because he wasn't talking at all
about his bill.
Let's start with what I really agree with the gentleman about.
Article I makes Congress the preeminent and predominant branch of
government, as Madison said in the Federalist Papers. We are the
predominant branch. Don't accept anything from anybody on either side
of the aisle if they get up and talk about how we are three coequal
branches, which is what they teach people in fifth grade.
First of all, ``coequal'' is not even a word. That is like the term
``very unique'' or something like that. Republicans are saying we are
three equal branches.
I think not because the preamble of the Constitution leads right into
Article I. All of the legislative power is vested in us, and it is laid
out in Article I, Section 8. There are 18 different powers to regulate
commerce domestically, internationally, the budget, taxes, et cetera.
Then Article, I, Section 8, Clause 18 says: and all other powers
necessary and proper to the execution of the foregoing powers.
Going to Article II, there are four short sections about the
President. There wasn't even a President included in the Articles of
Confederation. They decided to add it. Why? What is the core job of the
President? It is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed,
not distorted, not mangled, not overturned, not defeated, not thwarted.
The President doesn't have the power to impound money that has been
appropriated by Congress. An appropriations act is just another law,
like the law that you can't assault Federal officers. An appropriations
act is just like that. Congress is, indeed, preeminent and predominant,
but I am afraid that, at that point, my agreement with the gentleman
falls off.
Let me start by addressing the comments of the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley). I don't know if the gentleman is
there.
Mr. Kiley was actually a student of mine at Yale Law School. He was
an A student all the way, but I would say he just gave us a B-minus
argument because he at least addressed the idea of Congress reviewing
regulations, and he said he thought that was important for legislative
power.
We have that power. He didn't address what this bill is about, which
is bundling together a whole bunch of dissimilar and unrelated
regulations and voting on them once. The distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Kiley) never talked about that. I hope the gentleman
comes back to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) says that the
Democrats are giving away legislative authority to the administrative
agencies. Not at all. No. No. On the contrary. We think the
administrative agencies must faithfully execute the laws that we,
Congress, have passed.
This month, Republicans are the ones who have completely abdicated
their legislative power. The majority is allowing Elon Musk's actions.
God knows what role he is playing. He is a special government employee
who hasn't turned in any conflict of interest forms, at least that I
have seen.
I don't even know who he thinks he is representing or advocating for
other than his own business interests, and he hasn't shown us that he
has a conflict of interest waiver for the billions of dollars of
taxpayer money he gets from government contracts. Yet, my Republican
colleagues are perfectly happy to sit on their hands for several weeks
and not do anything to get in the way.
Some of them shamefully have even gotten up and thanked Elon Musk for
the great job of oversight he is doing when we have an Oversight
Committee that the Republicans chair. The Judiciary Committee could be
looking at it also.
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are applauding
a guy and his nighttime crew of a bunch of junior Muskovites who are
hacking into computers and taking over the private data of millions of
Americans in blatant violation of the Privacy Act and the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which was pushed by Ronald Reagan, who
would be turning over to learn what has become of his party.
Mr. Speaker, why do Republicans want to be able to bundle all of
these bills? Republican Members haven't said.
Why don't my Republican colleagues tell us which bills the majority
wants to bundle together?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) said: We are not going to
put all those popular ones that I just talked about from the CFPB and
the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Education. We are
not going to put all those in it. It is just the unpopular ones.

Tell us which are the unpopular ones that Republicans are going to
bundle together as the majority barrels this through.
The distinguished gentleman hasn't explained why he thinks this is
befitting the legislative branch of government, which he rightfully
commends as the preeminent branch of government.
I thought my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were opposed
to multiple subject rules. I thought that the gentleman was advocating
for single-subject bills. This is the exact opposite of that when
everything is thrown into one big gumbo.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I did not have junior Muskovite on the bingo card. I do
find it interesting that the gentleman would be commenting on Ronald
Reagan's current condition and his state of repose because I think he
probably doesn't understand Ronald Reagan's philosophy at all.
Let's talk about what might be good if regulations are bundled
together. Let's just consider a couple of things.

[[Page H659]]

The need for the Midnight Rules Relief Act is most clearly seen in
the wave of regulations issued by the prior administration in the
eleventh hour of their administration. In the last few months, the
Biden administration issued a staggering total of more than 1,400 final
rules.
Here are two that might be single subject. Let's think about it.
Would Democrats be okay if the Biden energy final rule of December 2024
was included, which effectively banned gas-powered water heaters in
homes, which would increase their price by hundreds of dollars?
I wonder if my Democratic colleagues would be comfortable with
sticking that with another Biden energy regulation issued in the same
month, December of 2024, after he had already lost the election, that
forces appliance manufacturers to comply with onerous rules that slow
down the washing times for dishwashers from an hour or less to more
than 2 hours?
One wonders. Those sound like they might be single-subject bills.
Moreover, there is nothing in here that mandates that we just bind
everything together. The minority knows this doesn't require everything
to be stuck together.
My Democratic colleagues know that they can be analyzed and bound
together, as they can currently, except that they can't currently, can
they?
I just picked two rules out of the air. Those two rules right there
would require two separate bills. They would require two separate
bills. Democrats don't want that.
Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule
that dramatically raised the cost of repairing commercial and
residential air-conditioning units. Maybe all three of those could go
together in the same bill, but that can't be done under the current
rule. That can't be done under the current law. We couldn't do it.
You would be stuck and you are going through the process, and believe
me when I say I feel like we are going as slow as molasses here. My
leadership would say that I complain about it all the time. We are
taking next week off. Maybe Democrats would be comfortable if we were
working next week and we were going to go through maybe 150 of these
rules.

{time} 1615

Maybe that would make you happy. What I will tell you is that the
Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to consider and
disapprove or accept all three of these burdensome regulations at one
time. That makes us more responsive, and it makes us more able to
process and oversee these regulators, these bureaucrats.
I find it intriguing. Elon Musk got mentioned again. He has replaced
Trump. There is no longer TDS. Now, it is Elon Musk derangement
syndrome because he has got to mention that on everything.
Here is the way it works. They want to say Elon Musk is looking at
regulations and stuff like that, but we have an Oversight Committee. We
do. We have an Oversight Committee, and we are busy conducting
oversight.
It sure would be nice if the Oversight Committee could put some of
these bills together as we consider these rules. However, when you have
1,400 rules, it doesn't matter how many oversight committees you have,
you are going to have a tough time getting them done in a 2-year
period. That is just the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I know they talk about the deranged Trump
syndrome. Now they are talking about the deranged Musk syndrome. I do
know that Steve Bannon has described him as a truly evil individual, so
I understand that there are major conflicts emerging over there.
In any event, back to the merits of the bill. I have to adjudicate
the merits of this bill by the lack of coherence and energy and passion
with which my normally passionate and eloquent colleague is operating
today. One can barely torture out an argument from everything he is
saying for the bill, and I noticed there is no one left on his side who
wants to be associated with it in any way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Jacobs), my colleague.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Midnight Rules
Relief Act, which would strip away the robust debate, careful
deliberation, and transparency our democracy requires when considering
the repeal of long-established Federal rules.
I have to be honest with you, it is so funny to me that I have just
heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend 30 minutes
talking about the preeminence of Congress, about how we don't want
unelected bureaucrats making these rules, when they are literally
allowing an unelected Elon Musk to run roughshod over Congress' power
of the purse and to literally break laws that Congress has passed and
mandated.
Let's talk about what the Midnight Rules Relief Act actually means in
practice. It means that Republicans would dismantle important
protections in areas like public safety, consumer rights, environmental
conservation, data privacy, and so much more all in one fell swoop--
sometimes dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of rules that took years
to develop all just smooshed together.
Things like safeguards against lead in our drinking water, rigorous
safety standards for baby products, antismoking measures for youth, and
consumer protections from shady business practices.
In one hasty move, these protections could vanish without thorough
debate or transparent decisionmaking.
Those Federal rules and so many more could be wiped out in the blink
of an eye without substantial debate, without sufficient transparency,
without allowing the American people to know why we are repealing these
rules or what conflicts of interest might be at play, especially from
Elon Musk.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would prohibit the bundling of rules related to issue
areas where Elon Musk has a clear conflict of interest. With a net
worth of around $400 billion, Elon Musk has many conflicts of
interests. That is why he should be bound by the same disclosure
requirements and ethic guidelines as all other civil servants and
elected officials, but, in the meantime, my amendment would force us to
consider individually any regulation that may be a conflict of interest
to Elon Musk.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. JACOBS. Get ready for these lists of conflicts of interests
because it is long: anything related to national security, the
aerospace industry, transportation and highway safety, biomedical
technology, artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer payment systems,
workplace safety and workers' rights, and data privacy. It is a long
list, and it is why we should keep Elon Musk far away from our
government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, surely, it must have snowed in Arizona last night. I
thought I heard the gentleman agree with Steve Bannon. Hell must have
frozen over is all I can say.
Now, here is the deal. We just heard the gentlewoman talk about how
this bill would strip away robust debate. No, it won't. It won't do
that. You can debate these regulations under this provision. There will
be debate.
The same rules remain in place, but what she actually aggrandized and
what the gentleman has been aggrandizing all day is bureaucratic
control of regulatory schemes. That is what they are promoting. They
want the bureaucrats to control with us not having adequate opportunity
to review those.

[[Page H660]]

When you have an administration like the Biden administration as well
as the administrations of Clinton, Obama, and Bush, they all increased
in their last 6 months by two-and-a-half times the number of
regulations that they issued. Those end up staying in place because
there is not capacity under the current law to review those regulations
and actually debate them.
My bill actually does the opposite of what they are suggesting. It
actually brings us in as Members of Congress to review, debate,
discuss, and decide if we want to accept or reject those bureaucratic
rules.
For the other aspect of this, before I reserve again, I will just say
this: If you like those regulations, then why don't you put them in a
piece of legislation and promote them yourself?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, why don't we put them in legislation? I would love to.
If your leadership would allow us to bring it to the floor, to cap bank
overdraft fees at $5, let's do it. I will take all these consumer
public safety regulations, turn them into bills, and bring them to the
floor as soon as you get an agreement from your leadership to do that.
They don't even want to vote on the horrid bills that you bring forward
much less the excellent bills that we have got.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: If you want to defend the $5
overdraft rule, if you want to defend the ban on junk health insurance,
then vote against their bill. If you want to get rid of all this public
safety regulation, then go ahead and support their bill.
The gentleman amazingly says in answer to my colleague from
California that there will be time to debate the regulations. Their
bill would allow for 355 major regulations to be bundled together so
they can get away with just one vote. They would twist their arms to
vote for that one vote for all the special interests out there who want
to get rid of it.
Do you know how much time there would be to debate on each regulation
if we had the normal 1 hour rule? As you know, right now each side gets
30 minutes. That is 60 minutes. We would be able to spend 10 seconds on
each of those regulations. Just 10 seconds, and the gentleman assures
us there will be ample time to do it.
Come on. Get real. Be serious.
This is an attempt to destroy the public interest in a way that the
gentleman knows is an absolute travesty in terms of the integrity of
the legislative process. He is the author of the one subject, one bill
legislation. He is the author of it, and this bill is the absolute
antithesis of it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of opposition, one
from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and one from Earthjustice.
Coalition for

Sensible Safeguards,

February 12, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Democratic Leader Jeffries: The
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), an alliance of over
200 labor, scientific, research, good government, faith,
community, health, environmental, and public interest
organizations that represent millions of Americans and
advocate for effective regulations to protect the public, and
the undersigned organizations strongly urge you to oppose
H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules Relief Act.
H.R. 77 would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to
allow simultaneous disapproval of dozens of regulations
finalized near the end of presidential terms using a single
joint resolution. The effect of this bill would be to greatly
expand the CRA's anti-regulatory force by amplifying the
harmful impact of the CRA's ``salt the earth'' provision,
which bars agencies from issuing new rules that are
substantially the same as the rules that are repealed. It
would also make it easier for narrow majorities of lawmakers
to repeal recently completed safeguards without the due
consideration and deliberation that Congress should employ
before taking such drastic steps. As such, the operation of
the bill would significantly constrain agencies' authority to
carry out their statutory missions to protect the public.
The proposed legislation is based on a fatally flawed
premise--namely, that regulations which are proposed or
finalized during the so-called ``midnight'' rulemaking period
are rushed and inadequately vetted. In fact, the very
opposite is true. In recent months, the Biden Administration
has finalized regulations that increase overtime pay to put
more money in the pockets of working families, limit carbon
emissions from polluters to fight climate change, increase
fuel efficiency standards to make cars cleaner, protect
workers from harmful ``non-compete'' clauses in employment
contracts, block companies from taking advantage of consumers
with ``junk fees,'' put new limits on toxic ``forever
chemicals'' that poison communities across the country, and
many more. Unlike CRA resolutions, which can sprint through
Congress in just a few weeks, many of these regulations that
will benefit the American public had been in the regulatory
process for years.
In July 2016, Public Citizen released a report that
compared rulemaking lengths for rules finalized at the end of
the term or during the presidential transition period to
those that were finalized outside of this period. The results
were noteworthy. The report found that rules issued during
the presidential transition period spent even more time in
the rulemaking process and received even more extensive
vetting than other rules.
Prominent administrative law experts have also concluded
that the concerns regarding these regulations are not borne
out by the evidence. For example, in 2012 the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS) conducted an extensive
study of regulations finalized near the end of previous
presidential terms and found that many end-of-term
regulations were ``relatively routine matters not implicating
new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.''
ACUS also found that the ``majority of the rules appear to
be the result of finishing tasks that were initiated before
the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines
outside the agency's control (such as year-end statutory or
court-ordered deadlines).'' ACUS concluded that ``the
perception of midnight rulemaking as an unseemly practice is
worse than the reality.''
Supporters of H.R. 77 have presented no persuasive
empirical evidence supporting their claims that regulations
were rushed near the end of presidential terms. Likewise,
they have supplied no evidence that such regulations did not
involve diligent compliance with mandated rulemaking
procedures. In reality, compliance with the current lengthy
regulatory process prevents agencies from finalizing new
regulations efficiently, and thus earlier in presidential
terms.
In the end, it is difficult to overlook the tragic irony at
the heart of H.R. 77. It would empower Congress to use the
Congressional Review Act (CRA)--a process that is rushed,
nontransparent and discourages informed decision-making--to
block rules that have completed the long journey through the
rulemaking process.
Unlike the CRA's expedited procedures, agency rules are
subjected to myriad accountability mechanisms, and, for each
rule, the agency must articulate a policy rationale that is
supported by the rulemaking record and consistent with the
requirements of the authorizing statute. In contrast, members
of Congress do not have to articulate a valid policy
rationale--or any rationale at all--in support of CRA
resolutions of disapproval. Quite simply, they can be, and
often are, an act of pure politics. H.R. 77 would make the
situation even worse. It would, in effect, demand that all
members of Congress have adequate expertise on all of the
rules that would be targeted by a single disapproval
resolution. Such a scenario would be highly unlikely.
It would also risk encouraging members to engage in ``horse
trading'' to add still more rules to the disapproval
resolution until enough votes have been gathered to ensure
the resolution's passage. Surely, this approach to
policymaking cannot be defended as superior to that
undertaken by regulatory agencies.
Public Citizen, which co-chairs CSS, is actively tracking
the CRA resolutions introduced in the 119th Congress. Over 60
rules are vulnerable to repeal through the CRA. Last
Congress, 22 out of at least 109 CRA resolutions faced votes
on the House or Senate floor. The targeted rules protect
small businesses, workers, consumers, students, veterans,
investors, people of color, clean air, clean water, renewable
energy, wildlife, gun safety, among others.
CSS agrees that the CRA is in dire need of reform, but
instead of expanding its harmful effects, as the Midnight
Rules Relief Act would do, we encourage the House to evaluate
proposals that would limit those effects. One such measure is
the ``Stop Corporate Capture Act.'' Among its many real and
meaningful reforms to strengthen the regulatory process, the
Stop Corporate Capture Act would address one of the most
problematic aspects of the CRA by eliminating the ``salt the
earth'' provision discussed above. Critically, the Stop
Corporate Capture Act would also create a fast-track
reinstatement process for rules that were the subject of
resolutions of disapproval.
We look forward to working with Congress to ensure that our
regulatory process is working effectively and efficiently to
protect the American public.
We strongly urge opposition to H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules
Relief Act.
Sincerely,
Accountable.US, AFL-CIO, American Bird Conservancy,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), Americans for Financial Reform,

[[Page H661]]

Animal Welfare Institute, CalWild, Center for Biological
Diversity, Center for Economic Integrity, Center for Food
Safety, Center for Justice & Democracy, Center for
Progressive Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Center
for Science in the Public Interest, Christian Council of
Delmarva, Citizen Action/Illinois, Climate Action Campaign,
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, Consumer Action.
Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Federation of
California, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety,
Cultivating Lives Educational Services, Inc., Earthjustice,
Economic Action Maryland Fund, Economic Policy Institute,
Endangered Habitats League, Endangered Species Coalition,
Food & Water Watch, FOUR PAWS USA, Friends of the Earth,
Government Information WatchGreenpeace USA, Impact Fund,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Kettle Range
Conservation Group, Large Carnivore Fund, League of
Conservation Voters, National Association for Latino
Community Asset Builders, National Association of Consumer
Advocates, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its
low-income clients), National Consumers League, National
Employment Law Project, National Health Law Program, National
Wolfwatcher Coalition, National Women's Law Center, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Oceana, P Street, People Power
United, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Public Citizen, Public Justice, Public Justice Center,
Resource Renewal Institute, RESTORE: The North Woods, Rise
Economy, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Team
Wolf, Texas Appleseed, Tzedek DC, Union of Concerned
Scientists, United Steelworkers (USW), Vermont Public
Interest Research Group, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,
Womxn From The Mountain, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates.
____

EARTHJUSTICE.
Re Please Oppose H.R. 77, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.''

Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Democratic Leader Jeffries: On
behalf of Earthjustice, I respectfully urge you to oppose
H.R. 77 when it comes up for a floor vote next week. H.R. 77,
titled ``The Midnight Rules Relief Act,'' would amend the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) to allow Congress to bundle an
unlimited number of regulations finalized in the last months
of a President's term into a single CRA resolution of
disapproval, instead of blocking them one at a time as
permitted under current law. The ability to reach back and
place a multitude of an Administration's significant rules
under the harsh provisions of the Congressional Review Act is
dangerous and outrageous. In the interest of public health
and environmental protections that keep us all safe, please
oppose the Midnight Rules Relief Act and vote NO.
A resolution of disapproval containing dozens, if not
hundreds, of administrative rules finalized over the previous
potentially six months or more that dealing with the
environment, public health, labor, education, and a myriad of
other issues would get merely 10 hours of debate. Frankly,
neither the full content of the resolution nor its sweeping
implications would receive anything like the scrutiny such a
draconian measure deserves. In marked contrast, the very
rules targeted by such a resolution would have been many
years in the making and have had public engagement as
required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other
federal laws. Even worse than ``repealing'' in one fell swoop
safeguards developed over the years is the CRA's requirement
that an agency may not reissue the rule in ``substantially
the same form.'' In essence, proponents of this bill seek a
permanent 11th-hour veto of essential safeguards, as Congress
would never likely successfully re-legislate dozens or
hundreds of rules.
There is no plausible reasonable governance justification
for Congress to repeal a substantially large number of rules
in one blunt measure. The various concerns raised to justify
this amendment to the CRA are a pure fallacy. Proponents of
H.R.77 presume that ``midnight rules,'' that is, rules
finalized towards the end of a presidential term, lack the
quality of analysis required in the rule-making process that
helps justify regulations. However, most rules finalized in
the last months of an administration, irrespective of
political party, have gone through multiple years of review
and processing, sometimes predating the administration's
releasing the final rule.
The bill would also risk encouraging members of Congress to
engage in ``horse trading'' to add still more rules to the en
bloc disapproval resolution until enough votes have been
gathered to ensure the resolution's passage. Indeed, this
approach to policymaking cannot be defended as superior to
the careful process undertaken by regulatory agencies for
each separate rule.
In its current iteration, the CRA is an extremely blunt
instrument that can permanently damage crucial public health
and safety measures. It disregards the extensive work and
expertise that went into the rulemaking process, limits
transparency in the political process, devalues public
participation in rulemaking, and provides no judicial review.
This legislative proposal would only intensify the dramatic
and problematic consequences of the CRA by allowing Congress
to bundle rules into one single resolution of disapproval.
We strongly urge you to oppose the Midnight Rules Relief
Act and reject its false and misleading rhetoric, which is
unrelated to the real problems of excessive and systemic
delay in the regulatory process.
Sincerely,
Brielle L. Green, Esq.,
Earthjustice, Policy & Legislation, Senior Legislative
Counsel, Regulatory Reform & Access to Justice.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, when I consider everything that was just said and what a
travesty this bill is and how hardened and offensive this bill is, I
find it intriguing.
Just like I am not sure I can accept that he was chasing me down
because he wanted to sign on to my single-subject bill, I am not sure
that his math is right on the 10 seconds to discuss and debate each
bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. No. You had your 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, this bill has the potential to bring
back into control and authority the legislative power that has been so
wrongfully and wholly without oversight delegated to these agencies
that are out there.
It has resulted, under Democrat and Republican administrations, in
regulations that impact every aspect of every Americans' life, and they
have been put together by unelected bureaucrats.
There is a reason that people said we have had enough of it. That is
one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. My colleagues
across the aisle don't want to accept that, but the bottom line is
this: The meddling that goes on in every aspect of your life they want
to control whether you can have a gas heater in your home. They don't
want that, but by golly they are going to pass an omnibus bill that
spends trillions of dollars and then they are going to complain because
we are bundling a few regulations together.
There is no requirement that you bundle every regulation together.
There is no requirement that you bundle all of them together. There is
no requirement that you bundle two together.
This bill merely allows that to take place. I have mentioned several
of what those rules may be that would actually be within the same
subject even, but the bottom line is this: If we don't do it, the
bureaucrats are going to continue to run this place. They are going to
run the country, and the American people will have no recourse.
This gives them recourse. We are the ones who are elected, not the
bureaucrats. If you want the $5 CFPB rule, then go ahead and introduce
it. Don't complain to me, oh, gosh, your Speaker won't let it in. Yeah.
I know how that goes. I have been here when there has been a Democrat
Speaker. You know what? The pendulum swings back and forth, but what
shouldn't swing back and forth is legislative authority.
We are the preeminent, predominant power amongst the separation of
powers, the three branches of government, and there should not be four.
Now, scholars will tell you there is a fourth. It is the administrative
state. This curbs the administrative state. That is why this is so
important.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support and pass this bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

[[Page H662]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Jacobs of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 77
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Jacobs is as follows:

Ms. Jacobs moves to recommit the bill H.R. 77 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Page 2, line 8, insert ``except in the case of a rule that
concerns national security, the aerospace industry,
transportation or highway safety, biomedical technology,
artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer payment systems, fair
labor practices, or the administration of the Privacy Act of
1974,'' before ``a joint resolution of disapproval''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 213, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 40]

YEAS--205

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (TX)
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)

NAYS--213

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOT VOTING--15

Crawford
Donalds
Garamendi
Gillen
Gomez
Gottheimer
Grijalva
Johnson (GA)
Kelly (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Luna
Mullin
Pettersen
Smith (MO)
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1652

Messrs. BAIRD, BILIRAKIS, SMITH of Nebraska, GRAVES, GROTHMAN, VAN
DREW, MASSIE, and TURNER of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. MORRISON, Messrs. LEVIN, MFUME, and STANTON, Ms. DeLAURO, and Mr.
RUIZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA
on Roll Call No. 40.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 208, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 41]

YEAS--212

[[Page H663]]

Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--208

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (TX)
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)

NOT VOTING--13

Crawford
De La Cruz
Donalds
Gomez
Gottheimer
Grijalva
Kelly (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Luna
Mullin
Pettersen
Smith (MO)
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1700

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, today I was unable to vote in the
afternoon due to attending an event at the White House that was during
voting time. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call
No. 40 and YEA on Roll Call No. 41.

personal explanation

Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes, but had I
been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 40 and NAY on
Roll Call No. 41.

____________________