Midnight Rules Relief Act

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will take a moment to recognize my colleague, Chairman Michael Burgess.

First, I will let him know that he and his family will remain in our prayers during the difficult time that he is now dealing with, and we all will keep your daughter in our prayers, as well.

As he also mentioned in his opening remarks, this is the last time that he will be managing a rule on the House floor before his retirement. While it is no secret that Congressman Burgess and I have rarely agreed on issues before us--we probably can't even agree on what to have for lunch--I have always respected his dedication. I have always respected his diligence and his service to this institution, and I know how much he loves this country.

I know I speak for all of us when I say that we appreciate his years of hard work and we wish him all the very, very best. We look forward to working with him in other capacities. He has placed his official portrait right in front of me in the Rules Committee, so I will constantly think of him.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, now for the matter at hand while we are all on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand here today under different circumstances and I wish I didn't have to open my remarks with the news of another senseless tragedy, but here we are again. Yet another school shooting, this time at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. Innocent people killed; innocent people injured just days before Christmas.

Let's think about that for a moment.

Innocent people killed and injured while the Republican leadership in this Congress does absolutely nothing about the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Nothing at all. It is shameful.

How many times are we going to let this happen? How many more shootings before we decide enough is enough? This House should be moving heaven and earth to pass legislation to save lives. Instead, Republicans are wasting more time on yet another bill that does nothing and will go absolutely nowhere.

This so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act that we are considering is not about helping the American people. It is not about protecting kids from gun violence. It is not about making our communities safer. This bill is about one thing only: giving handouts to corporate special interests.

Republicans are gutting critical protections that keep our air clean, water safe, and economy fair because they want to give corporate special interests free rein to pollute, cheat, and exploit the system. This is about helping billionaires and big donors at the expense of everyone else.

While we waste time on this nonsense, kids continue to die in classrooms and parents continue to live in fear every time they drop their children off at school.

We should be voting on the assault weapons ban. We should be voting on universal background checks. We should be closing dangerous loopholes that allow deadly weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

Republicans don't want to do any of that. Why? Follow the money. Follow the money. Look at who the NRA donates to.

That is how Washington works. It is all one big giveaway for the special interests and those at the top who want to profit off gun sales.

I find it shameful. It is horrific that Republicans refuse to break free from the grip of the gun lobby.

Instead, we are here debating a bill that helps billionaire corporations and hurts everyday Americans. That is what we are doing in this Chamber today. What a disgrace, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since this is possibly the last time the Rules Committee will be on the House floor for this Congress, I wanted to take a moment to review some things--the dysfunction, the chaos, the incompetence, the extremism, and the broken promises that have become the new norm under this failed Republican majority.

Republicans came into power talking about openness, transparency, and regular order. Regular order, my foot. All they have done is delivered a master class in dysfunction, extremism, and behind-closed-doors lawmaking.

They promised openness and debate, and they basically broke that promise the moment they took power. They presided over the most closed, the most undemocratic, and the most restrictive House of Representatives certainly since I have been here and probably ever.

Republicans shattered their own record for closed rules, 115 closed rules in total. Fifty-seven percent of the rules advanced by this committee were closed. That is a 29 percent increase over the last Congress, which they had the gall to criticize at the time.

Understand that a closed rule means no amendments--no amendments, no debate, no nothing. A bill goes to the floor, and we take it or leave it.

Closed rules may be appropriate at some times, but the unprecedented number of closed rules here isn't just a failure of process. It is a deliberate choice by Republican leaders to silence the voices of Members on both sides of the aisle.

All told, this majority rejected nearly 6,000 amendments in Congress. Eighty-two percent of them were Democratic amendments blocked by Republicans. It didn't stop there. Sixty-seven percent of bipartisan amendments, proposals that could have brought this House together and delivered results for the American people, were blocked by the Republicans. They actively rejected bipartisanship.

Here is the most shocking number: Republicans blocked 57 percent of their own amendments. They didn't just box out Democrats. They boxed out a lot of their own people who wanted to bring amendments to the floor and have debates and votes. They blocked more than half of their own amendments. If I were a Republican, I would be asking: What the hell is going on around here? Why is this majority so afraid of debate?

We haven't even touched on their incompetence and dysfunction yet. Multiple times this Congress, we heard from Republican witnesses on bills that they never brought to the floor. Multiple times they would pass something through the Rules Committee only to never bring it up for a vote on final passage.

They still have not sent 13 bills they passed over to the Senate. Do these guys need to watch ``Schoolhouse Rock!''? I mean, a bill can't become law if you don't send it over to the Senate.

They are half-passing their crappy bills. You literally can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. They have waived regular order dozens and dozens of times, skipping hearings and markups and sidelining committees of jurisdiction that have extensive expertise on policy matters.

Let's not forget how we started this Congress--with 5 days and 15 ballots just to elect a Speaker, a Speaker who handed over his gavel to the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. Then, 9 months later, the MAGA extremists fired him anyway. They fired him anyway, and they plunged the House into 3 weeks of complete paralysis and total chaos; 3 weeks where Congress couldn't move, couldn't legislate, couldn't do anything all because of Republican incompetence; 3 weeks where Republicans sat around and argued with themselves and did nothing at all about the urgent crises facing this country.

That is beyond dysfunction, Mr. Speaker. It is more than a waste of time. It is pathetic. If this were the private sector, they would all be fired. Republicans sat around and did nothing for weeks on end while Democrats pleaded with them to do something, anything, and they did nothing.

Then, somehow, things got worse because Speaker Johnson didn't end the dysfunction. He doubled down. Under his leadership, Republicans issued 56 closed rules in his first 9 months.

Things went from bad to worse. Rule votes failed time and again, a stunning humiliation for this Republican leadership. For context, Mr. Speaker, before this Congress, the last time a rule failed on the House floor was over 20 years ago, in 2002. Now, it is becoming routine because Republicans can't even pass their own bills.

They said they would complete all 12 appropriations bills before the August

2023 recess--another broken promise. They said this year that they would finally get their act together--another broken promise because here they are, the week before Christmas, trying to pass another stopgap funding bill that nobody has even seen the text for.

Where is it? Where is it? Is it hiding behind a desk somewhere in the Chamber? Is it under the Christmas tree? With Republicans in charge of this place, maybe the Grinch stole it.

Maybe we will see the text before we get to vote on it. Who knows with this majority.

It is just astounding, astounding incompetence and chaos. It is honestly pathetic. Republicans have run this place like a dictatorship, Mr. Speaker, and they don't even have anything to show for it.

This has been the most ineffective Congress in American history, the fewest laws passed in the first year of any Congress since the Great Depression. Maybe, just maybe, it is because Republicans prioritize extremism and handouts for corporations and billionaires over solutions for everyday people.

Even when they did work to address real challenges, like avoiding a catastrophic debt default, keeping the government open, or delivering essential foreign aid, it was Democrats who stepped up every time and got those bills over the finish line. They needed our votes every time.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that Republicans end this Congress the way they began it: Shutting down voices, shutting down ideas, and shutting off debate.

The American people deserve better. I think that is why the other side actually lost seats in this election. Control of this Chamber was decided by 7,309 votes across three districts out of 148 million votes cast for House candidates nationwide. That is not a mandate for chaos, Mr. Speaker, it is an indictment of this majority's failed leadership, and I shudder to think of how bad things will get next year if Republicans don't change things up.

Given their razor-thin margin next Congress, the way for them to do that is pretty obvious to me: They need to stop the extremism. They need to stop the extremism, and they need to get to work with Democrats to get stuff done.

That is the path ahead. That is what the American people want, and I hope my Republican friends will take it so we can work together for the good of the American people. All of us in this Chamber should be disappointed in the record of this Congress.

My Republican friends, in particular, should be disappointed with their failed leadership. That has to change. People have to come first. We have to solve the problems that are facing average people in this country, and we have an opportunity to do that. It is to turn away from the practices of this past Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response, but maybe one of the reasons why you had the number of rules you did is because you had to keep on redoing them because they either failed on the House floor or they couldn't pass the House floor.

When the gentleman says that it was a mistake to vacate the Speaker's chair, it wasn't a mistake. It was something that the gentleman and the Republicans deliberately did by changing the rules to make it easier for any single Member to vacate the chair to get rid of the Speaker.

That was a deliberate change in the rules that Republicans made possible because they were afraid of the extremists. They sided with the extremists in their Conference.

Again, I have nothing but personal high regard for the current Speaker of the House, but I don't think it is appropriate to say that Republicans are necessarily happy with his leadership.

I am just reading a quote from one of my Republican colleagues here who said that the Speaker's overseeing of the CR process, the continuing resolution process, is--and I am saying this directly--a ``dumpster fire.'' A dumpster fire.

All I am pleading with my Republican friends to do is to change your ways as we enter the new Congress, to actually make this place function in a way that doesn't always cave in to the extreme, rightwing, MAGA elements of your Conference and actually put people first.

We all don't have to agree on everything to agree on something, but the way my Republican friends run this place, even something we agree on, we can't get to the floor.

Maybe if we open the process up a little bit more, and we don't try to break this Congress' record for having the most closed rules, maybe we will have a deliberative process, and we can get some stuff done and the American people might have some confidence in this institution.

Right now, this place is not functioning. This is the least productive Congress that I can ever recall, perhaps even in history. I don't think that that is kind of the title that anybody should want to aspire to.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman that I think that when you look at the numbers, the election was pretty close.

Yeah, unfortunately, for people who think like me, Donald Trump became President. I think that is a terrible thing for the country, but that is what ended up happening.

At the same time, the American people voted to lower their margin here in the House. Maybe that is because the American people are paying more attention to what is happening in this Chamber and not liking what they are seeing, what they are hearing.

I think the message of the last election, given how close everything is, is the American people want us to work together, because if not, we are not going to get very much done. I think there are a lot of things that we need to do.

I began my opening today referring to the terrible tragedy in Madison, Wisconsin. I think the American people would like us to do something to prevent gun violence in this country.

I think they want us to do more to lower prices. I think they want us to do more to increase wages, to make housing more affordable and accessible for people. I think they want us to take on the pharmaceutical industry, which we have tried to do under the last two Democratic Presidents, but my Republican friends seem to always be critical of those efforts to lower prescription drug prices, but they want to have healthcare costs lower.

They want us to take on everyday problems. I don't think you can do that if all you bring to the floor are extremist measures, measures that, quite frankly, play well with a small group of hard, rightwing conservatives in this country, but have no appeal to anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, we are here in the aftermath of yet another senseless gun massacre, another preventable loss of life. Yet, this majority would rather do the bidding of special interests than address an actual crisis facing our Nation.

The bill we are talking about here today on regulations, again, is big corporations' dream come true. It is a way to eliminate regulation designed to protect the well-being and the safety of the American people without having a lot of debate and just doing it all at once with a bunch of repeals all bunched together, and just giving big corporations what they want. I think that is a terrible idea.

Big corporations don't speak for the people I represent in Worcester. Big corporations, quite frankly, are working overtime to try to deny my constituents the fair shake that they all want so that they can make more profits.

My colleagues on the other side need to take a hard look in the mirror. They need to ask themselves, again, on the issue of gun violence, how many more shootings until they find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and actually do something.

The American people are watching, and they are tired of this cowardice. They want us to act. They want us to keep people safe. They sure as hell don't want us wasting their time on corporate giveaways like the ones contained in the legislation that we are going to be debating later today.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to reject this shameful bill and start doing the job we were sent here to do, protecting the people we serve, helping to even the playing field, helping to give people more hope that their life will improve in the future.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1616, I call up the bill (H.R. 115) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 115, the Midnight Rules Relief Act.

This is an important piece of legislation that will allow Congress to more effectively and 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. This reporting requirement allows Congress to properly consider Federal regulations before they take effect. The CRA gives Congress the ability to pass a joint resolution to prevent an agency's rule from taking effect.

The CRA's disapproval mechanism gives Congress a critical check on Federal administrative overreach. Currently, however, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a single, separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to render unenforceable. This one-by-one limited joint resolution under the CRA 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 substantially more regulations that last year of a President's term.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this midnight rulemaking period by allowing Congress to introduce joint resolutions covering 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 or disincentivize Federal agencies from issuing rules on important issues, but that is incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill 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 in agency regulations during the midnight hours of a President's term.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's just address the previous speaker first of all. We already have a 60-day legislative lookback in the law. We are not changing that. That is apparently an objection that my colleague had.

We already have in the law that a substantially similar rule cannot be introduced if the Congress says no-go on it. Apparently, that is what my colleague's beef is. That is already the law.

What we are allowing now is for Congress to actually look at more than just a piece-by-piece, one here, one there, maybe you get a dozen to 18. You really don't ever get much more than that in a congressional lookback in the CRA.

Let's review what the Biden administration has done. The rules that they have promulgated in the last year alone have an economic impact of $1.4 trillion on the economy. There are individual bills in this packet here. This is just for the last little bit, the lookback period. There are 68, and that is with 30 days to go. There are 68 of them in here that I am holding up.

One of my favorites is the $45 billion boondoggle that they have got here. It is a rule, and $45 billion is the impact on that one. Let me see if I can read it. It is the national primary drinking water regulation for lead.

Here is the deal: It doesn't get looked at under the Democrats' concerns, but it does under ours. Why do you need to look at it? It just seems to be common sense that if you are going to have a $45 billion rule, maybe we ought to get to look at that.

We are going to come together to actually be able to effectively and efficiently put together these rules in a package. They are going to be marked up. They are going to be heard. If we think that it is justified, we get a chance to vote on it. Members can make their amendments to it. They can do everything else that we can have in the process, but the current methods that we are doing right now slow this down so much that we effectively review just a handful of rules, literally, of the dozens and dozens and hundreds of rules. Like I say, there have been 68 in the last little bit here that this administration put through.

When my colleagues across the aisle start talking about this rule or that rule, I challenge them to go through here and tell me how many of these rules they have even looked at. Are they aware of what is even in these rules? Are they aware of how much they are going to cost? Are they aware of the impact that it has on the working individual or an industry or the American people as a whole? No, they don't have that.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this bill. I am going to leave it there. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when I first got to Congress, I was sitting in the Senator from Utah Mike Lee's office, and I said, hey, I don't understand this. You have got a stack on your desk here of about 4 inches, and yet you have a 13-foot tall stack of documents right next to it. What does that symbolize?

He said, the 4 inches are the total number of laws passed by Congress in the last year. The 13 feet is the total number of rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies. That is what we are facing.

When my colleague says, hey, we can look at 25--do you know what the high recently has been? It has been 17 in a year, 17 individual ones. Guess what? My bill doesn't say you can't look at these. In fact, it does the opposite. It encourages us to look at the rules. If they are good, they will stand. If they are not good, they will fail. That is what Congress is supposed to do. Another colleague would say, we are trying to expand Congress' power.

No. The Founders were clear. In the Constitutional Convention it isn't three separate coequal branches. It is three separate but unequal branches.

The legislative branch is supposed to be the most powerful. That is why it got funding. That is why the House is supposed to do the funding because we are the people's House. We are ostensibly closest to the people in the Federal Government.

They don't want you to look at the rules promulgated by unelected bureaucrats. They want you to just blithely go ahead with it. That is the problem.

So when my colleague stands up and says, well, I don't know the cost. Maybe that cost is $45 billion. Maybe Biggs is right, maybe he is wrong. I don't know what is in the regulation. Maybe it is good, maybe it is not.

The essence of that argument is that we really shouldn't look at it. Really? Don't look at the law?

That is not what we are saying. We are saying, indeed, look at the regulation, and let's get as many regulations as we possibly can and look at them. That is what we are trying to do.

Let me give you one right now. This is another one right here. If you happen to be fortunate enough to buy a piece of property, no matter how large or how small, and you can pay cash for it--and oddly enough, I was able to buy a couple of acres of property not long ago--it was actually a long time ago, about 25 years ago now, back before property blew up in cost in my area--well, if I were to pay cash now, that transaction is going to be heavily regulated, and it is going to cost the economy and cost taxpayers $2.2 billion.

By the way, these aren't Biggs' numbers, these are the Biden administration's numbers. When the Biden administration's number says we imposed $1.4 or $1.37 trillion on our regulations, that is not me talking. That is the Biden administration admitting that their regulatory impact is $1.4 trillion.

Maybe we should look at that. Let me just add this: This notion that, gee, we need to look at these one at a time, and if we only get through 16 or 17 that is really odd because--it is ironic, actually. Tomorrow probably or the next day, you are going to see an omnibus, a short-term omnibus, come to the floor. They are calling it a CR, but it is really a short-term omnibus. In that bill are loads and loads of spending, loads and loads of policy.

Guess what? They are all going to vote for it. They just don't want you to look back at the rules that this administration has put into place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from New York says we ought to know what is in the rule, he doesn't know diddly crap about the lead pipe rule that he keeps referring to. He doesn't know diddly about any of these other rules. He has admitted that.

He doesn't know about them, doesn't know how much they cost, and he doesn't know whether they would have a good cost-benefit analysis. Guess what? Most of this body doesn't either.

What he is arguing is you really shouldn't look at it because this bill does not change regular order. It does not change regular order. That means somebody is going to be drafting this bill. It means somebody is going to debate this bill in a committee. It means somebody is going to debate it on the floor, and that means you are going to have an opportunity to look at these rules, and if it has benefit, you can amend it.

You can amend that bill to remove that from your CRA. That is the way to get this through. I do find it--I have got to mention it again-- laughable to say you shouldn't combine 20 rules that are made by unelected officials who we haven't seen their rule, we haven't participated in their rulemaking process generically--that is normal-- and then stand up here and tell us we shouldn't have that lookback.

We shouldn't do that, when awkwardly, those same folks are going to vote on a massive omnibus spending package in the next 48 hours. They haven't seen the language. You know why I know they haven't seen the language? I know because it isn't out yet. I haven't seen the language, but they are going to vote for it. They don't want you to know what is in these rules promulgated by unelected officials. That is the doggone shame of it all.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we can walk around this barn all day long. When you say, look, we want you to do this on a single rule over and over again, that is not real. That is the way it has been. We don't know. Congress doesn't know.

That is why your constituents come up and say to you, hey, why is this going on? Why is now a financial adviser going to be regulated very tightly to the tune of $7.2 billion adjudicated by the Biden administration? Why is that?

Well, I don't know. Well, you are in Congress. Well, yeah, but it is a rule. You know, we put it on autopilot because we think the experts really are experts. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. One thing this bill does is it says look at what the bureaucracy is doing. Look at what the fourth branch of government is doing here. Look at this.

If my colleague from New York says, hey, we don't know if something is good or bad, let me reiterate: We are not changing regular order. We are not changing regular order. Someone has to draft the bill. You are going to debate the bill. You are going to debate it in committee. You are going to debate it in rules. You are going to debate it on the floor. There will be opportunities to amend it. That is called regular order.

His criticism of our leadership for not bringing 12 bills, I am always there. I am always critical of it. This is probably the only thing that we have agreed on today so far. Well, his party did the same just a couple years ago, too. It goes back and forth.

There is a problem with that on both sides, but what I am encouraging and what this bill encourages is a real lookback, a real follow through on regular order, and a real understanding of what the rules are doing to the American people.

Some of them may be excellent. Some of them may not be so, but this is an opportunity to actually get Congress doing its job. Maybe that is why there is reticence to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we go, Mr. Speaker. We are going to walk around the barn one more time. Let's go around that barn just one more time and say the same thing again.

My colleague and I are obviously diametrically opposed. He thinks that if this bill passes you won't look back, you won't specifically look at any iterated rule. I am telling you, nothing seems further from the truth than that to me because here is the deal: Somebody is going to have to draft that bill. They are going to have looked at some of these regulations. They then are going to bring it to the committee chairs, you are going to be sitting in a committee, and you are going to have a markup on this.

The gentleman from New York knows this because we both sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I sit on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and we have almost indeterminable debates in markups. They go forever. Everybody gets 5 minutes for everything, for every amendment. If you have 25 rules sitting in there, guess what? You are going to have everybody in that committee probably taking 5 minutes a piece on all 25 rules and fully examining that rule and deciding whether they want to keep it in the CRA.

Right now do you know what happens? You might look at as many as 15 or 20 rules per Congress. That is it. We are talking literally hundreds and hundreds of rules that pass that are promulgated. Some may be great. Some may be bad. What this bill does is it encourages Congress to finally do its job.

I am all in on doing the 12 approps bills separately, but even with the 12 approps bills, you will have multiple lines that you are looking at, and you won't necessarily see all those lines.

It is time that we start looking at the rules and see what the administrative state is doing to Americans. That is the bottom line. They don't want that. They don't want that. That is a crying shame to me. It is a crying shame.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am glad we agreed finally on the second thing, and that is we are going around in circles.

I want to make a couple quick points as I round the barn one more time. The most CRAs done in a year was in the 115th Congress. Mr. Speaker, 17, only 17--which by the way, that is the same year that Mike Lee had 13 feet of regulations promulgated by the administrative state.

I just want to remind you what happens in the last year and why this is critical. Regulatory promulgation kind of goes at a flat line. Then that last year of a Presidency, of an administration, boom, it spikes up. It spikes up. That is the reality. That is why we have always had the 60-day lookback. If it extends now to the whole year, if it were to do that, you are going to be dealing with a spike.

I am just getting back to this point. If the most you have ever looked at ever is 17 in a year, then you don't know what the other hand is doing, the other hand being the administrative state.

I am just saying let's do it. Let's look at them, and let's make this work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to pass this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so you have thousands of regulations in 2024 promulgated, thousands, impacting us by $1.4 trillion. The most CRAs you have ever had is 17, and we are told, oh, just trust the administrative state.

I can't do that.

My constituents can't do that.

Americans can't do that.

We are trying to come up with a reasonable approach to make this more workable, and that is what this bill is. That is what H.R. 115 is. It encourages Congress to do its job. That is why this is so important.

I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in favor of H.R. 115. Let's get this passed and let's make Congress the legislative branch it is supposed to be per the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, despite the bill's title, H.R. 115 is not really intended to address midnight rules, but rather is an effort by our Republican colleagues to advance their antigovernment, deregulatory agenda under cover of darkness.

This legislation may appear to be a modest change to the Congressional Review Act, but do not be fooled. It would enable the Republican-controlled 119th Congress to use a turbocharged CRA to nullify every rule issued by public agencies under the Biden administration for the entire year of 2024 in a single party-line vote.

Under the CRA, if a rule is overturned, agencies are forever prohibited from considering, without new congressional authorization, a ``substantially similar'' rule, an unreviewable, vague, and harmful standard that would undermine agencies' statutory missions.

Doing away with dozens of rules at once, as the Republicans intend with this bill, would substantially weaken agencies' ability to protect the public long into the future.

While historically the CRA has been used sparingly, after Donald Trump's first inauguration in 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress used the CRA to repeal 16 rules issued by the Obama administration, an all-time high. Critical rules on teacher training, internet privacy protection, and the prevention of water pollution from coal mines, among many others, were all repealed over a few short weeks.

It seems that Republicans have even bigger ambitions for the next deregulatory spree as they pursue their unabashedly antigovernment agenda.

Rather than consider agency rules on their individual merits, they want to package as many rules as possible into a single resolution to eliminate them

all at once with little debate or deliberation over the merits of each individual rule. The results of this single vote could be catastrophic.

Right now, there are dozens of regulations at risk of summary execution, including rules that ensure the safety of bath seats for infants, implement the National Suicide Hotline Act, create dust-lead and lead pipe safety standards, update chemicals listed under the Toxic Substances Control Act, update heavy vehicle automatic emergency braking standards, and ensure all cell phones are hearing aid compatible, among others.

Why do Republicans feel they even need this power? Maybe it is because they realize that many of the agency rules that they constantly rail against are actually popular with the American people.

Taking a series of votes making it easier for corporations to pollute the environment or take advantage of the most vulnerable would likely not be well received. Better to overturn as many rules as possible in a single vote, reducing transparency and obscuring the consequences.

Make no mistake, whether those votes are held individually or en bloc, the American people will be the ones to bear the consequences. With Republicans in charge of the House, Senate, and White House, it is likely that every rule the Biden administration has issued in the last year will be on the chopping block, along with the protections those rules provide to our constituents' health, safety, and economic well- being.

In addition, striking down a bundle of rules at once means not only that each rule will not be considered on its own merits but also that months and years of agency time and taxpayer dollars, along with the expert analysis and public comments from industry, nonprofit groups, and individual Americans, all will have been wasted.

Members on both sides of the aisle have recognized that midnight rulemaking, if left completely unchecked, can lead to abuses by the executive branch, but true midnight rules are rarely issued, and there is already a lookback period under the CRA to address rules promulgated at the end of any congressional term.

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 successors a chance to review such rules and to determine if they should go forward.

I believe there are ways 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 would instead use a machete, hacking away at the Biden administration's regulatory agenda and furthering their ideological goal of radically transforming our government.

None of this should be a surprise. H.R. 115 is a key plank of Project 2025, the blueprint for the incoming Trump administration. Project 2025 calls for ``dismantling'' the administrative state and argues that doing so must be ``a top priority for the next conservative President.'' That is because, according to the document, ``the only real solution is for the national government to do less.''

To be clear, the ``less'' that they want to do refers to the important and expert work undertaken by the country's Federal agencies protecting consumers, workers, and the public from corporations and people that break the law.

We should reject any backdoor efforts that would eviscerate vital regulations, would open rules and protections to even more political interference, and could prevent agencies from ever working on similar issues again, all with just the most cursory examination by Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose the Midnight Rules Relief Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from more than 250 organizations representing workers, consumers, and the environment opposing H.R. 115.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona says the Biden administration has enacted rules that will cost $1.4 trillion. Over what period of time, he doesn't tell us, and I don't know whether it is correct or not, but I am sure, in terms of the budget, the Democratic and Republican staffs of the Appropriations Committee are looking at them very carefully every year.

He picked one as an example, $45 million to protect against lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is a real problem. It leads to mental deficiencies in children. If there is a $45 million rule to deal with this, that sounds fine to me.

The real question is, maybe we ought to examine that rule. Maybe, as Mr. Biggs said, there is something wrong with that rule. Maybe we ought to repeal that rule, but we have the procedure to do that in the current law.

What this bill seeks to do is to say: Don't look at that law. Take 25 rules and put them together so that you can't examine any one of them, and in one vote, we will get rid of 25 rules. Maybe some of them are good rules, and maybe some of them are bad rules, but no one is going to get a chance to debate them because we have one vote, one bill.

That is what this bill does. This bill says to combine all the CRAs into one CRA vote. CRAs are a proper exercise of congressional power. It helps us control the executive, whether it is Democratic or Republican. Nobody argues against a CRA--well, maybe a particular CRA, but no one argues against the idea of a CRA. A CRA ought to be looked at individually. We ought to look at the merits of the CRA, maybe debate it on the floor. Maybe Republicans support it and Democrats oppose it, or maybe the other way around. Maybe it splits not along partisan lines. Maybe it is very clear that we want to do it, but we ought to look at it.

This bill says take 25 CRAs and have one vote so that we can't look at the merits of the individual CRAs, and with one vote, we may be doing immense damage to the health, safety and welfare of the American people, or not. We have no way of knowing because we can't study the CRAs individually.

This bill is pernicious because it combines everything into one vote and denies us the ability to look at the merits of each. Therefore, it ought to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, another rule on the chopping block is to update heavy machinery emergency brakes.

Does my colleague also want to roll back this rule, a rule that will save lives?

If the will of the people is truly that we roll back these lifesaving measures,

my colleagues should have the bravery to vote down each rule individually. Then you can tell your happy constituents that you voted for lead poisoning, and you voted for not implementing a national suicide hotline.

Let me say this: The gentleman from Arizona gets it exactly backward. First of all, he says the cost of all of the regulations is $1.2 trillion.

What are the benefits? Maybe they are far greater than that. We ought to know.

If you find a rule that you think is wrong, if you think the cost of this rule outweighs the benefits, fine, bring a CRA to the floor. That is not what this bill does. This bill says don't bring a CRA to the floor. Bring a combination of 25 or 30 CRAs to the floor so that you can't examine them individually.

Maybe some of them make sense. Maybe, in some cases, the regulation outweighs the benefits, or the cost outweighs the benefits. Maybe in another case, it is a different regulation, the benefits outweigh the costs. We should look at it as an individual CRA. That is why the CRA process was designed.

What this bill does is to upend that process by saying we are not going to look at the individual regulation. We are not going to look at the individual CRA. We are going to put 25 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 100 CRAs together in one vote with presumably an hour of debate on the floor. It is saying you can't look at the merits. That makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants to criticize the Republican leadership of the House for not bringing to the floor the 12 appropriations bills that they promised they would and that they should, and instead putting them all in one omnibus bill, I join him in that criticism. It is not the way to run the ship of state. I join him in that criticism of the Republican leadership of the House.

Let's go back to the lead paint. It costs $45 million we are told. How much does it save in children not getting lead paint poisoning, in hospital costs? It saves a lot more, presumably.

We have agencies that Congress has established over the last more than a century, since World War I, since the Wilson administration, to make determinations that Congress can't.

How many parts per million of cadmium should be permitted in drinking water? I don't know, but the EPA makes that judgment. Now, if someone in Congress thinks the EPA made the wrong judgment, that it is costing more than it is worth, bring a CRA. That is why we have CRAs. Don't talk about the total cost of all regulations because the total benefit of all regulations is many times greater than that.

Certainly, if you are talking about looking at anything, bring a single CRA. This bill, again, says to Congress, don't look at what the administrative agencies have done. Don't look at whether it makes sense to have this regulation or not. Just take 25 or 35 or 45 CRAs, repeal 35 or 25 or 55 rules without having a chance to really look at any of them because someone in the Republican leadership decided that they should.

If this bill passes, Congress will not have the chance to examine any subject of a CRA. That is why this bill is so pernicious and ought to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does exactly the opposite of what the gentleman from Arizona says. This bill does not give us the chance to look at a regulation and decide whether it makes sense.

This bill puts all the regulations together so that we can't look at them. We can't look at any one of them in particular because they are all together in one vote with one hour of debate on the floor.

Let me give you an example of a rule that is on the chopping block. You have a rule ensuring that all cell phones--it is a new rule--that all cell phones are hearing aid compatible, a rule that requires cell phone makers to update their tech.

Does my colleague want to roll this back? What is the cost that my colleague would stomach to ensure our seniors can call and hear their family members and friends? That is just one regulation.

Maybe you think it costs too much money for the tech companies to satisfy grandma and grandpa, that they

shouldn't be able to talk to their grandkids or their family members by phone because it costs the tech companies too much money. All right. Make that case on the floor with a CRA. I will debate it because I think the opposite, but make that case on the floor with a CRA.

This bill says don't make that case on the floor with a CRA. Put all the CRAs together so you can't debate the merits of any one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are going around in circles, but let me just add one thing. We call this the Midnight Rules Relief Act, but it is a big midnight. It extends the entire year, the last year of any President's administration. A whole year, that is hardly a midnight rule.

Again, if you want to look at the merits of a rule--and the gentleman says we have only like 20, 25 a year maybe or maybe we will have 250 next year, who knows. It depends on the politics. Debate the bill.

When a bill comes to the floor, there is 1 hour of debate. We are supposed to debate 25 CRAs in an hour. Some of them may be good, and some of them may be bad. Each CRA deserves its own consideration by those who support it and by those who oppose it.

This bill says, no, all together in one bill, so you can't really oppose or support any particular one of them. Take it or leave it on all of them, and you have no time for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we have both said, we are going around in circles, so I will say what everybody has been waiting to hear: I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona just said that the greatest number of CRAs that we have had in a given Congress is 17. Okay, I will take him at his word. Why not have 17 votes? Why not debate each for up to an hour so we know what we are doing? This bill says put them all together so we don't know what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is just the latest Republican effort to undermine the regulatory process. It would allow Donald Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress to wipe away dozens of lifesaving regulations and consumer protections in one single party-line vote under cover of darkness.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the House Committee on Rules met to report a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 115, the Midnight Rules Relief Act under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. It also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I will start today by saying thank you to everyone who has prayed for our family and sent letters, flowers, and best wishes over the past 2 weeks. Your thoughts and your prayers have helped our family as we deal with an almost unimaginable crisis with the loss of our beloved daughter, Christine. The support from everyone in this body has been overwhelming, and I hope everyone knows that my family appreciates the support. We met overwhelming grief with overwhelming support, and for that I want to thank people.

With today possibly being the last time I manage this debate, and if this body will indulge me, I will express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity of a lifetime to serve as chairman of the exceptional Rules Committee.

When I was first elected in 2003, I could never have imagined serving in this capacity and performing such an important role in our legislative process. Throughout my career, I have made a point of always saying ``yes'' to a challenge. When Speaker Johnson called me, I knew I had no choice but to accept. Serving on this committee,

let alone assuming the role of chairman, has not been an easy ride, and the legislative process is not as smooth as what we learned in ``Schoolhouse Rock!,'' but it has only allowed me and my appreciation for the House of Representatives to grow further. I am forever grateful for the opportunity to serve as its chairman.

It has given me a front-row seat to history, and whether I agreed with the decisions being made or not, this committee continues to be a model for how Members conduct themselves in the House of Representatives, respectful but ever-passionate, and I hope you all continue with that strong and honorable tradition in the next year because the American people have high expectations, but, frankly, they deserve the best from us.

I also will take a moment and thank the Rules Committee itself, my personal staff, the Rules Committee staff, who have worked so hard to ensure that I am prepared every day and that this body can conduct its work efficiently. For the past 22 years, I have been blessed to be surrounded by an amazing, smart, and talented staff. Without each of them, I would not have gotten to where I am today.

I thank my Republican colleagues for your continued commitment to prioritizing legislation that is always in the best interest of Americans. You all have a tall order next year, but having gotten to know each of you over my time here, I have every bit of confidence that this House is up to the task.

I appreciate Mr. Speaker's indulgence, and now we will get on to the business at hand.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met to report on a rule providing for consideration of legislation that is as timely as it is fundamental to our constitutional checks and balances. The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, provides the primary legislative check on regulatory overreach by allowing Congress to reverse a rule by resolution. However, that is a single rule, and Congress' ability to keep up with these new regulations is constrained by its ability to write and pass new bills as fast as an administration can send them out with trillions of taxpayer dollars and resources at their disposal.

Administrations of both political parties tend to overwhelm Congress at the end of their term with hundreds of new rules. These are known as midnight rules, representing billions of dollars of new regulatory burden in the span of just a few short weeks. Congress has historically struggled to keep pace. The executive branch has exploited the inefficiency of the Congressional Review Act because bureaucrats know that Congress simply does not have the time or the resources to consider hundreds of rules, draft a bill for each one, and get each one signed into law by the time that rule would take effect. The result is our constituents bear the burden of this new bureaucratic cost without any accountability to eliminate it. H.R. 115 makes a small change to existing law to allow Congress to catch up to this expected onslaught of new regulations as the Biden-Harris administration leaves office.

The bill will streamline the process Congress already employs with respect to executive rulemaking. It does not change the lookback timeframe, congressional prerogatives to block similar rules, nor does it eliminate or constrain the executive rulemaking authority in any way. These things are already in existing law.

All it does is simply allow what Congress can already do in one bill instead of hundreds. Doing so will allow Congress to keep up with the rapid pace of midnight rules, reining in the Federal bureaucracy at a time when historically it is its most aggressive.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

These are interesting talking points that have come up against a bill that the minority purportedly says didn't do anything in the first place. Let's look at what the facts of the case are.

This bill does nothing to change how the Congressional Review Act works. It does not change the look-back period for disapproving rules. It remains 60 legislative days from the point at which a rule is put in the Federal Register. That is current law.

It does not change whether Congress can block substantially similar rules. Congress is already able to do that. It is authorized under law and unchanged by this bill.

It does not proactively constrain or eliminate executive rulemaking authority.

All this bill does is allow Congress to do what it already can do in a single bill rather than having to file multiple bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, can I just point out for the record that the number of rules produced by this Rules Committee under this Republican majority is more than the number of rules that were produced in the previous Congress under a Democrat majority. That is just a fact of life.

Look, I recognize this time of year, it does get tense. The ranking member knows well that the committee has to remain flexible to be able to give the Speaker the tools he needs to get done whatever needs to be done for the government to be funded for the end of year. It is not always a pretty process. It wasn't when Democrats were in charge, and certainly this year, the challenge remains.

I do want to say this: The motion to vacate the Speaker a year and some months ago was a mistake. It was a mistake brought to the floor by individuals who had a particular axe to grind, and they ground it. It hurt the country, and it was wrong.

We are so fortunate that Speaker Johnson stepped forward. He took the challenge that the Conference provided him, and he has provided excellent stewardship in the 16 months that have followed. We are enormously grateful as a Nation, especially at this time at the end of the year where we are giving thanks and we are looking around and counting our blessings.

Well, one of those blessings that families should count is Speaker Mike Johnson because he has really placed the future of his country front and center in his life. His family has had to make sacrifices, and he has had to make sacrifices.

Yes, we have made some sacrifices on the Rules Committee. I freely admit that, but this country is worth that. As we wrap this up--and this may not be the last rule of the year. You never know. The excitement is always around every corner. As we conclude this debate, I, for one, just want to say how grateful I am to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, for the work that he has done in delivering us and getting us here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that in the last election that the gentleman keeps referring to, Republicans did prevail. They prevailed up and down, Presidency, the Senate, and the House. It is a narrow margin to be sure, but it keeps you on your toes when you are trying to manage a very slim majority.

I think for the first time in history, there is a larger majority in the Senate than there will be in the House in the next Congress. The American people heard a vision articulated by our Presidential candidate, President Trump, and they responded to it.

I mean, what has failed the last 2 years has been leadership from the White House. It has been nonexistent. We are entering a time where there will be a bold vision for America, articulated by soon-to-be 47th President Donald J. Trump. I, for one, am grateful and looking forward to his leadership on that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Review Act, a lot of times, people don't think about it. It is not something that registers or strikes a lot of cords in people's souls, but let me just tell you something, we all have those moments in our lives: I remember where I was when the man landed on the Moon. I remember where I was when a world leader died. I remember where I was when the Congressional Review Act was allowed to go into law under George W. Bush early in his administration that prevented the institution of what was called the repetitive injury rule.

I ran a small medical practice at the time, not a big business. I had 50 employees in my office, and I was going to have to change every computer terminal, every keyboard, and every keyboard rest to be in compliance with the repetitive injury rule that some agency in the Federal Government had produced.

Congress, early in the days of the Bush administration, passed the Congressional Review Act, which reversed this rule. I remember pulling into my driveway one evening, probably early the year 2001. We didn't have cable news and 24-hour news back then. I was listening to NPR on the radio.

The news came across the wire that Congress had repealed this Federal rule that was going to cost me tens of thousands of dollars in my small medical practice. Although that was a small step for man, a giant leap for mankind, it was at that moment I realized in my mind the importance of my Representative looking at the rules that are produced by a Federal agency. I didn't need more paperwork to make my life safe at that point.

Clearly, I urge this body to support the rule and the underlying legislation. The bill allows Congress to more efficiently review rules issued during the midnight hours of the President's term by reviewing more than one rule at a time. This change would let Congress properly oversee agency rulemaking in the period when a disproportionate amount of rulemaking historically occurs.

Mr. Speaker, for perhaps the last time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want safety in the products they buy and the food they eat. Republicans, with this bill, will undermine the regulations that provide Americans peace of mind.

The government's job is to keep us safe, to put people's health and safety over corporate profits, but Republicans want to side with profit-making corporations and their billionaire buddies over the people's interests.

H.R. 115 would allow congressional Republicans to reverse dozens of agency rules at once, in one fell swoop, without careful consideration by professionals or regard for the safety of American families. This bill would help corporations cut corners at the expense of families across the country.

We have seen what happens when rules and regulations aren't in place. Think back to when cars became deadly fire traps after car accidents because there were no safety regulations. Remember the defective airbags that exploded, taking lives instead of saving them?

Without regulations, those car companies would have been able to go on doing that. Regulations make sure that salmonella does not enter our food supply and sicken millions.

Because they don't like regulations, because their corporate friends don't like regulations, in one simple bill, Republicans would eliminate dozens of agency rules, including a rule to replace lead pipes so communities have safe drinking water.

There are almost 10 million American households and--listen to this number--400,000 school and childcare centers that are served by lead service lines, pipes, or other fixtures. In some of our Republican districts, there are tens of thousands of families and children exposed to lead pipes.

Why are they putting their corporate interests over the health and safety of those who are drinking water from lead pipes?

The Biden administration's October 2024 rule makes sure that those dangerous lead pipes would be replaced, but if Republicans get their way, this rule could be on the chopping block without any discussion in Congress.

This Republican bill could also eliminate a proposed rule to expand access to contraception. Women deserve to know that Republicans can't seem to stop going after our reproductive healthcare, this time by reducing our access to basic contraception. Really, Republicans just can't seem to respect women's rights to basic healthcare.

The Republican bill could also eliminate a rule to establish safety standards for infant support cushions and even a rule to finally implement the National Suicide Hotline Act. Once again, because Republicans know that these regulations are popular with the American public, they want to eliminate them without discussion or debate.

``Midnight'' is probably a good name to give to this bill because it is an in-the-dark attack on our ability to protect Americans now and in the future.

Congress already has a bill. If they want to reverse a regulation, they can do it. They can come on the floor and let the American people know why they want to do it so the American people are not in the dark.

This bill would let Republicans deny women's contraception. It would let them hide their work to weaken children's safety and hide the fact that they are turning their back on the suicide hotline.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and against this bill.