Providing for consideration of 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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,

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.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

As the gentlewoman pointed out, this rule would bring H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules Relief Act, to the floor for debate and consideration.

The underlying bill is a bad bill. It was a bad bill back when we considered it in December, and it is still a bad bill now. This is a bad bill that is all about Republicans gutting protections that ensure the safety, health, and well-being of each and every American. It is a blatant power grab that was ripped right out of the pages of Project 2025.

Why would Republicans want the ability to roll back protections en masse with very little debate and in a way that could threaten the lives and livelihoods of regular people? Why would they want to do that? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. The answer is simple. It is so they can deliver big for their billionaire donors and special-interest friends, and it is so they can make it easier for greedy corporations and Wall Street CEOs to make a few extra bucks while they screw the rest of us.

Billionaires don't want workplace protections. They don't want rules that keep them from dumping toxic chemicals into our food, water, or air. They don't want restrictions on their corporate greed. Why would they? That digs into their bottom lines, and Republicans are happy to give the billionaires exactly what they want.

We have seen it in every policy coming out of the Trump White House. We have seen it in almost every bill that this majority brings to the floor.

They don't want to talk about that here on the floor, but, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are going to talk about it. We are going to expose it. We are going to highlight all the ways they are trying to steal from the American people so they can give more handouts to those at the top.

The American people deserve to know the truth about what is really happening here, and I am going to use my time on the floor today to continue to expose it all on behalf of House Democrats.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to inform the gentlewoman of the fact, which I hope that she knows, that the CRAs are already the law. We already have this authority to go after regulations that this body doesn't like. Multiple CRAs have been introduced by Republicans in this Congress, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single committee has held a hearing or a markup on any of them, not one. Not a single one has been brought to the floor for a vote or debate. What Democrats object to is Republicans bringing

en masse all these different things that they don't like, limiting debate so that we can't talk about them individually, and just shoving them down the throats of the American people. Whatever happened to single-issue bills that you all said you wanted?

This doesn't even require you bringing CRAs to the floor that are under the jurisdiction of one committee. It could be multiple committees.

You say you needed some emergency authority. You have the authority. What you don't want to do is you don't want to go through the debate. You don't want the American people to know what you are doing. You don't want them to know that you are going after things that ensure their safety and their well-being. I think that is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing here: I get why Republicans are so anxious to get more tax breaks for billionaires. I now get it, and I will urge the American people to follow the money. Follow the money, and you will understand why politicians are beholden to billionaires, why they want to do things like what we are talking about here today on the floor.

To anyone watching this debate who actually thinks that Elon Musk cares about them, all I can say is that it takes an extraordinary amount of self-delusion to believe that billionaires like Elon Musk are fighting for working-class people. I don't even blame Elon. He is just doing what greedy billionaires do. I do blame the Republicans here in the Congress who are letting him add to his billions by stealing from the American people.

Just this week, Trump and Elon started to dismantle the CFPB. Do you know what CFPB stands for, Mr. Speaker? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

They messed up now because they are now showing their hand. It was never about waste, fraud, or abuse. It is about enriching themselves.

This is not just some random government agency that has no purpose. This is an agency designed to protect American consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive corporate practices.

Why would they want to do that? Why would Elon want to gut the CFPB? I did my homework and found out that Musk recently announced a partnership with Visa to enable payments on his social media platform, X. That means it would be subject to, you guessed it, CFPB oversight. Once Elon realized that, he wasted no time in declaring, in his own words, that the CFPB would soon ``RIP,'' rest in peace.

As if on cue, Trump listened to his boss, and he froze the CFPB's critical work. Nearly 2,000 employees were ordered to stay home and sit on their hands.

Mr. Speaker, the CFPB has been on the front lines of unrigging our economy, handling over 5 million consumer complaints, refunding $20 billion to the American people, and imposing over $4 billion in penalties on Wall Street for breaking the law.

This is not about waste or fraud or abuse. Every dollar spent on the CFPB returns twice as much to the American people. So then what is it about, Mr. Speaker? What is it about? It is about greed. It is about billionaire greed. They are shutting down the agency that stops billionaires from ripping off people. It is that simple. It is that simple.

Beyond that, Republicans will use this bill, the so-called midnight rules bill, to make it easier for banks to charge predatory fees that will adversely impact the people we represent.

Democrats support the CFPB, which protects people from these predatory big bank fees. Republicans, the big banks write their damn checks.

CFPB passed rules that stopped banks from charging predatory overdraft fees, passed rules that reduced expensive credit card fees, and passed rules to limit medical debt from credit card reports. Plain and simple, Mr. Speaker, the CFPB stands up to corporate greed, and that is exactly why Republicans, who are beholden to billionaires like Elon Musk, want to freeze it, want to gut it, and want to ultimately destroy it.

No one wants to talk about that on the other side of the aisle, but I must remind my colleagues the people of this country elected us to represent them, not to give billionaires and corporate profiteers free rein to rob working families blind.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Reuters titled: ``Fed's Powell: No agency other than CFPB tasked with consumer protection enforcement.''

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the gentleman has it all wrong. The gentleman said that we don't want to come down here and debate all of these one at a time.

Yes, we do. Yes, we do.

What we don't want Republicans to do is to pack 1,400 regulations into one bill where there is no debate and nobody knows what the hell they are voting on and the American people don't know the harm that my colleagues are about to do to them.

Mr. Speaker, with all the urgency that I hear expressed on the other side about all these regulations, a number of CRAs have been introduced, and not a single committee has held a hearing on any of them. There hasn't been a single markup, nothing.

Republicans have had a month. What the hell are my Republican colleagues doing? This is not a busy week. We haven't had any busy weeks. This is a very light legislative schedule. It is incredible how light it is. It is not like we don't have the time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman doesn't want to talk about the fact that Trump and Elon, as we are speaking, are literally shutting the government down agency by agency and department by department.

I get that Republicans don't want to talk about that, but that is what is happening right now. The agencies and departments that are set up to work for the American people are being shut down. People are being told to stay home. It is illegal, and courts are now stepping up to the plate.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach)--oh, my goodness, I don't even know where to begin--says that the American people voted for this.

No. The American people didn't vote for higher bank fees. They didn't vote to have banks rip them off. Maybe they did in Minnesota, but nowhere else in the country do I think the American people voted for that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican friends to do their job. We haven't even finished last year's appropriations bills. We are running up to a deadline in March on a continuing resolution to keep the government open for this year because my friends who were in charge can't seem to kind of get their act together.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1101, the Taxpayer Data Protection Act.

In a matter of days after Donald Trump became President, Elon Musk and his DOGE minions gained full access to our government's central payment system at the Treasury Department.

For those watching at home, that is their data. It is their tax refunds, their Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, and their bank account numbers. It is disturbing and alarming to hear House Republicans talk about unelected bureaucrats and the power that they wield.

That is Elon Musk. The people's data is in the hands of an unelected billionaire whose only actions thus far have served to help make him and his billionaire friends richer.

I don't even know what clearances these people have. Thank goodness a Federal judge, just days ago, blocked Musk's access to this data. Yet, Republicans and Musk are not stopping. This stuff can't be made up. Just this morning, Republican Representative Eli Crane from Arizona says that he is going to impeach the judge who blocked Musk. Really?

That is why we must consider the Taxpayer Data Protection Act and ensure that our Nation's payment systems and the people's data are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), the sponsor of this legislation, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really understand why my Republican colleagues don't want to talk about what is going on in this country. I really do get it.

They want to change the subject. If I were them, I wouldn't want to talk about their lousy and unpopular agenda either. Nor would I want to talk about the fact that they are robbing these incredibly effective programs that help the American people to basically pay for a tax cut that is going to end up resulting in a multitrillion-dollar debt. I get that they don't want to talk about that.

They want to eliminate programs to help working families in this country. They are defying court orders to choke off money for, get this, cancer research. They are trying to choke off money for consumer protection. I just came from an Agriculture Committee hearing. They are trying to choke off money for our farmers, for rural America. They go on and on about waste, fraud, and abuse, but they don't want to talk about how their MAGA buddy, Pete Hegseth, Trump's Secretary of Defense, wants to dip into taxpayer money like it is his own personal slush fund.

They don't want to go there, do they? Again, you can't make this up, but this guy wants to spend $50,000 on an emergency paint job for his government housing. Mr. Speaker, $50,000. This is an emergency.

I wouldn't want to talk about that either if I were them. I wouldn't want to talk about that either if I were them, Mr. Speaker, but I have two words for Pete Hegseth: Home Depot. I can narrow it down to one word: Lowe's. You get paint at a much cheaper rate than $50,000 to repaint your government housing. It is ridiculous, and that is perfectly fine with my Republican friends. It is perfectly fine.

I can only assume that it is luxury paint for that price tag. Maybe my colleagues can correct me. Meanwhile, they have the gall to come down here and lecture us about government efficiency and waste? It takes my breath away.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from military.com titled: ``Hegseth Wants $50,000 for `Emergency' Paint Job to Move into Military Family Housing, Lawmakers Say.''

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of corruption and waste and fraud that people deserve to know about, the kind that Republicans want to keep hidden from the American people during our debate today.

Well, guess what? I want to expose it.

Democrats are demanding answers because we think everyone deserves to know why this administration wants to spend 50 grand on paint for their fancy new houses while many of our troops live in housing with black mold and lead paint and can't pay the bills or make ends meet. That ought to be the priority, not a $50,000 paint job for the new Secretary of Defense. It is the same scam every single time. They do not care about efficiency or cost; they care about themselves.

This is about tax breaks for billionaires, giveaways for their friends, and making sure the rich and powerful never have to sacrifice a damn thing. These people don't buy their own groceries or pump their own gas. These are FOX News nepo babies that are fine with government waste as long as they are the ones doing it.

I am just so tired of this, Mr. Speaker. They are stealing from the American people. They do not care. They want to spend taxpayer money on luxury paint jobs for their fancy new houses while they screw over the rest of us, and Democrats are not going to put up with this BS.

This administration is corrupt, and we will call it out over and over and over and over again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not prepared to close yet.

Mr. Speaker, again, we are here during a rule debate talking about this majority's agenda for Congress, and it is funny because Republicans have a razor-thin majority. They have no mandate.

A mandate is like you won by 20 or 30 or 40 seats. Republicans lost seats in the last election. Republicans have the smallest majority in nearly 100 years, and so Republicans need every single vote to pass crummy partisan bills like this one. They can't afford to have any of their Members miss a vote.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats were in charge, when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, we actually put in place proxy voting in response to a worldwide pandemic. Anyone could cast their vote remotely if they had an excused absence. Mr. Speaker, because it is 2025 and not 1725, and we actually can use technology to vote remotely.

The backlash we got from Republicans on this was insane. They went out to the press and said that proxy voting was illegal. It is unconstitutional. It is this. It is that. Then, guess what? They did it themselves.

Speaker Johnson voted remotely 39 times. Let me repeat that: Speaker Johnson voted remotely 39 times. He voted remotely so he could go home early. He voted remotely so he could visit school kids. He voted remotely for an entire week once. He just didn't show up.

Then, despite him voting remotely dozens of times previously, when Johnson became Speaker, he ended remote voting because he said it was ``unconstitutional.'' Yet, he voted remotely 39 times.

Imagine my surprise, Mr. Speaker--it totally blew my mind this week-- when I see that Representative Byron Donalds somehow voted, and he wasn't even here in this building.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, are Members allowed under House rules to vote by proxy?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, are Members allowed to vote by proxy if they have a TV appearance in California that they really want to go to?

Mr. Speaker, this is really interesting now because last week Congressman Byron Donalds was at HBO studios in California, not on the House floor, but somehow news reports say he also voted here on the House floor at the same time.

This is so interesting, Mr. Speaker, because I have a tweet here from 2 years ago when Representative Donalds says: ``Today, House Republicans will vote to END proxy voting once and for all. The House of Representatives isn't a tech company. Its Members should work IN PERSON in the people's House.''

Yet, he voted by proxy after he voted to end proxy voting, and this is the kind of hypocrisy that appears to be a specialty with my Republican colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, let's say a Member of Congress has a baby or they are undergoing treatment for chemotherapy or a close family member dies, is there a provision in the rules for them to vote remotely?

Mr. Speaker, this is not hypothetical, and I kind of get what is going on here, but we have a colleague, Representative Pettersen, who is currently home because she just gave birth. She can't vote because this majority has refused to put in place a bipartisan tool to allow it.

Meanwhile, Republicans are out here breaking the rules while they jet off to Hollywood.

Clearly, the rules apply and are held so sacrosanct by the majority that they can't be changed for new moms, but somehow they can be changed for interviews in Los Angeles.

Let it apply to thee and not me.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, were Representative Donalds' votes recorded as if he cast them properly or has his absence been recorded?

Mr. Speaker, if I understand that correctly, they were recorded, even though he wasn't here in person?

Mr. Speaker, I have, and his vote was recorded, even though he wasn't here.

Let's just call this what it is: It is voter fraud under the rules that the Republicans have put into place.

Let's not even get started about who used Donalds' card to vote for him. They are fraudulently casting votes on the House floor to make sure they win every time whether or not they have enough Members here, but apparently voter fraud is okay if they do it. This is unbelievable.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have covered an awful lot today. We discussed how Trump, Elon, and their DOGE minions are trying to take down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that has delivered more than $20 billion, that is $20 billion with a b back to consumers because Elon doesn't want his business to be regulated.

We talked about how former FOX News personality turned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to spend $50,000 in taxpayer money on a high-end house paint job all while Republicans cry about government waste.

We exposed how some Republicans are committing the equivalent of voter fraud in the United States Congress, and, yet, they still refuse to let new parents be able to vote remotely.

I have a name for all of it, Mr. Speaker: Corruption. Rule for thee, but not for me. It is hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, is there a single thing any of them, Trump, Elon, or any of the people on the other side have done or are doing to help regular people? Can they name a single thing?

They promised they would lower grocery prices. Egg prices are through the roof.

They promised $1 a gallon gas. Gas prices are going up since Trump took office.

Don't forget, they promised to end wars. Trump is now talking about sending U.S. troops to Gaza so that Jared Kushner can build a Middle East Mar-a-Lago.

Did people really vote to send their sons and daughters to be deployed in the tunnels of Gaza?

They promised America first, and they want to put tariffs on Canada and Mexico that Americans would have to pay for. They backed down when the markets started failing, and they got nothing to show for it.

Not a single thing has been done for the American people, just broken promises after broken promises after broken promises.

Republicans have a three-vote majority. They do not have a mandate. They need to work with Democrats to get anything done, anything of consequence that is, but, instead, they are too busy handing out favors to billionaires and putting themselves first, all at the expense of the very people who sent them here.

They want a government that only serves the ultrarich. We want a government that puts people first. I came to Congress to help people, not to hurt people.

You are not helping people when you are dismantling important agencies and bureaus that actually are there to protect the health and well-being of the American people. You are not helping the American people when you try to cut money from NIH to do cancer research. You are not helping people when you try to gut consumer protection organizations that are all about making sure that big corporations don't trample over regular people and take away their rights or overcharge them.

For the life of me, I don't understand the silence on the other side of the aisle. We have been in a new Congress now for over a month, and, again, nothing has been brought to the floor to help improve the quality of life for regular people. Not a thing has been done.

I don't know how my friends go home and face their constituents and answer the question: What did you do this week? We did nothing; nothing for you.

We did a lot of body blocking to help people like Elon Musk and other very well-off and well-placed people enrich themselves, but we did nothing for you, the American people. That is not what we should be focused on.

The underlying bill that this rule is about here today is just another in a string of pieces of legislation that are being brought to the floor that are about trying to pull a fast one here, to basically repeal all these consumer protections, all these things that are designed to help the American people, all at once so that nobody knows what is in them.

They can bring a bill that repeals a thousand regulations all at once, and we have no debate. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to start putting the people of this country first.

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

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 122 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 77.

The rule provides for H.R. 77 to be considered under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees. The rule provides for a motion to recommit for the bill.

The Midnight Rules Relief Act addresses an inefficiency in the government and allows Congress to retain its current authority, overseeing administrative rulemaking without bogging down the legislative branch when we have so much work to get done.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit rules to Congress and the Government Accountability Office before they can go into effect. This gives Congress an important legislative veto option over the agencies.

However, this legislation requires Congress to introduce separate joint resolutions for each agency rule it wants to disapprove. Members at the time had no idea how out of control the administrative state would become. Since the Congressional Review Act passed, agencies have issued around 2\1/2\ times more regulations during the last year of each President's term. Moreover, under the Biden-Harris administration, Federal agencies expanded their power at an alarming rate, undermining the legislative authority granted to Congress by the Constitution.

The Midnight Rules Relief Act empowers Congress to review and potentially disapprove several regulations that Federal agencies may attempt to implement in the last days of an administration by allowing Congress to disapprove multiple rules through one joint resolution if those rules were issued during the last 60 legislative days, the midnight hours, of a President's term. This would allow Congress to quickly regain control and oversee agency rulemaking during a time when there is consistently a huge increase in executive overreach.

I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will support this bill. Just last week, we brought a bill to the floor that combats this country's fentanyl epidemic, something I know all of us care deeply about. Rather than debate the merits of the bill, my Democratic colleagues spent most of their time talking about what they believed has been executive overreach by President Trump. Comments were made that my colleagues are concerned that President Trump will try to do through executive order what he can't do through the legislative process.

Today, we present a bill that will help return authority to Congress and curb executive overreach. If my colleagues are truly concerned about executive overreach, then they should vote for this bill and start with the overreach that occurred in the final days of the last administration.

I thank Congressman Biggs for introducing this legislation, and I look forward to supporting this bill on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is wow. There is a lot going on on the other side talking about this being a bad bill. This is a bill that will attempt to recover the Congress' ability and authority to overrule rules that are written in the last few days of a President's term. We should have that ability.

One of the things that we hear about when we are talking to our constituents is overregulation. Congress, the elected Representatives, needs to be able to deal with the overregulation and the rules, particularly in those last 60 days during an administration while they are on their way out the door and see it as a last-ditch effort. I see this as making sure we are responding to our constituents.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly understand that the Democrats are very upset about losing the election, but the American people voted to change the direction of government.

They voted to end overregulation, voted to end growing government agencies and growing government in general, and they voted to end the growing deficit. They are done, and we need to move forward. We need to answer to the American people about what we are doing to make sure that we get these things under control.

I will also quickly address that it is incredible that my Democratic colleagues are trying to claim some moral high ground about single- subject bills. House Republicans have worked hard to bring single- subject appropriations bills to the floor and pass them individually.

When was the last time my Democratic colleagues did this?

Instead, my colleagues have passed massive omnibus spending bills when Democrats were in the majority, along with omnibus packages like the American Rescue Plan and the inflation expansion act. If Democrats would please spare us the false outrage at the idea of omnibus bills.

The truth is that this bill prevents the House from bundling CRAs with similar topics into smaller, single-subject packages.

There is also nothing that prevents the House from continuing to consider CRAs on a case-by-case basis, but we have to have the option. When an outgoing administration dumps rules in the last 60 days, we have to have that option to make sure that we are addressing issues.

I think our efforts toward single-subject bills demonstrate why Republicans can be trusted to use this tool responsibly, and I look forward to my Democratic colleagues abiding by their newfound commitment to single-subject bills the next time Democratic Members are in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I understand that the Democrats are very upset about losing the election, and I am glad that my Democratic colleagues are showing the American people where their priorities are.

For 4 years, President Biden issued executive orders without the consent of Congress that increased inflation--we all saw that--created additional burdens for our small businesses--we heard about that--and limited consumer choices.

My Democratic colleagues said nothing, but when President Trump tries to stop our government from spending $20 million of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars to create a ``Sesame Street'' show in Iraq, or $2 million on transgender surgeries in Guatemala, then my Democratic colleagues howl and jump up and down about executive overreach.

The American people are sick and tired of being told that executive orders that put our Federal Government in the way of our businesses and our family budgets are responsible, but attempts like this bill to roll back these burdensome regulations are reckless.

The Democrats don't want government spending examined and don't want to address unnecessary programs. What my Democratic colleagues want to do is continue out-of-control spending, growing our deficit, and spending those taxpayer dollars--spending taxpayer dollars. These aren't our dollars.

We need to be responsible, and that is why they elected President Trump and Republicans. They want a change in the direction of this country.

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

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

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

I am just so glad that my colleague across the aisle pointed out that we have covered everything today but the bill under consideration in front of us. I should stand here kind of surprised that my colleagues on the left don't support this legislation, but of course I am not. Their lack of support proves what we already know: They don't actually care about executive overreach the way that they claim to.

Unlike the Democrats, Republicans are not changing the subject. We are focused on making sure we do the job the American people elected President Trump and the Republicans to do. It is the Democrats who are talking about paint and not talking about the bill in front of us. They are not talking about what we are doing.

I very often find myself trying to refocus the Democrats on the bill we have in front of us, which happens in many committees, but the Democrats insist on sticking to their talking points, their pro- regulation, pro-government spending agenda.

A great example today is the rant about proxy voting. This has nothing to do with the bill in front of us. It is a bill that deals with rule writing and the ability of Congress to undo rules and overregulation.

They stood silently while Joe Biden used the power of the pen to dismantle our southern border and tell Americans what kind of cars, dishwashers, and water heaters they had to have. All of this was done without a single vote by Congress, yet my Democratic colleagues never cried out about executive overreach then.

My Republican colleagues and I are committed to streamlining Federal operations and holding the government

accountable. This bill accomplishes both of those objectives, and this is the bill that we are here to talk about today. The 1996 CRA requires Congress to pass a separate joint resolution for each agency rule to seek its disapproval, slowing Congress' ability to hold the administrative state accountable and block burdensome regulations.

This legislation restores congressional control and allows us to review agency rules swiftly if they are implemented in the midnight hours of an outgoing administration. This is a simple, effective solution to improve and expedite the work of Congress and takes a step forward to curb out-of-control overregulation.

One could argue that none of the orders that the Biden-Harris White House implemented in the final days in office should go into effect, given the signal he received loud and clear in November that the American people do not want what the Democrats are selling. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. Today, we are here to streamline congressional practices at a time when we are consistently bogged down.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I do find it really interesting that, if Members follow the logic of those who oppose this bill, what Democrats are suggesting is that, for the 1,406 rules that the Biden administration passed since August, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to do one bill for every one of them.

Let's do one bill for every one of them. We could. We could do that. I am happy to work. If that is what Democrats want to do, let's do it. We can come back next week. I am happy to

work every Saturday and Sunday. That is our job.

The minority doesn't really mean it. Mr. Speaker, Democrats don't really mean it because the reality is that, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle meant it, then my Democratic colleagues wouldn't stack 50 bills into one at a time when the minority does their omnibus spending packages the way House Democrats always do.

That is really interesting. The value to our economy and the budget of the rules that were implemented by the Biden administration, those 1,400, this isn't Andy Biggs talking. This isn't some outside group. Democrats claim it is Project 2025. This isn't those guys.

It is not any of those folks that said that the cost to the economy and the budget is $1.34 trillion. No. That was the Biden administration's own admission. That is what the imposition of their rules would cost, and we would love to get at that.

Democrats want us to do 1,400 separate bills. That way, none of their suspension bills where they are naming the post offices after their friends are going to get named. That is just what will happen. There won't be enough time.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: Democrats don't want us to consider the rules of the outgoing administration because we are going to see some absurdities when we do.

How about the heat rule? How about the heat rule? Up in the New England States, they might get 10 days a year where the high temperature is over 86 degrees.

Mr. Speaker, let's consider Arizona, where I am from. Do Members know how many days are above 86 degrees when people are working outside? It is about 300 days a year.

Democrats want the rule, set up by some person in a little cubicle-- if they even came into work, they might be working from home--to put a nationwide rule in place so that Phoenix, Arizona, basically is knocked out of being able to actually work and make it meaningful because we have 300 days a year above 86 degrees.

That is their heat standard. That is the rule.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues look into some of their antipollution stuff, guess what? Guess what the number one particulate is for just under 6 million people in Phoenix, Arizona, which is in Maricopa County. It is desert dust.

The EPA says to us: Hey, what you need to do is use water. You need to water that stuff down.

Guess what? The EPA also says that Maricopa County has a water problem.

Those are the kind of rules that my Democratic colleagues don't want talked about because what the minority wants to do is, if that rule is in place and you throw in the the 86-degree heat rule, Maricopa County, a big red county that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like, effectively would be shut down economically from economic growth and expansion and population-wise. That is why the rules need to be reviewed.

Democrats say: Let's review them one at a time. My Democratic colleagues don't want to review them one at a time because this bill does not prevent reviewing them one at a time. It doesn't prevent that.

It can still be done, but it makes it more efficient because guess what? We have about 1,400 rules, and maybe 6 of them were worth a tinker's damn, and it means the rest of them have to be reviewed. The only way they can be reviewed and debated is to aggregate them into different subsets.

That is what this rule allows. That is why it is important, and it is important for the American people to understand that that administration imposed about $1.35 trillion worth of rules on them in the last year alone.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.