Midnight Rules Relief Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN.

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I know they talk about the deranged Trump syndrome. Now they are talking about the deranged Musk syndrome. I do know that Steve Bannon has described him as a truly evil individual, so I understand that there are major conflicts emerging over there.

In any event, back to the merits of the bill. I have to adjudicate the merits of this bill by the lack of coherence and energy and passion with which my normally passionate and eloquent colleague is operating today. One can barely torture out an argument from everything he is saying for the bill, and I noticed there is no one left on his side who wants to be associated with it in any way.

Jacobs), my colleague.

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. ____ EARTHJUSTICE. Re Please Oppose H.R. 77, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Democratic Leader Jeffries: On behalf of Earthjustice, I respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 77 when it comes up for a floor vote next week. H.R. 77, titled ``The Midnight Rules Relief Act,'' would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to allow Congress to bundle an unlimited number of regulations finalized in the last months of a President's term into a single CRA resolution of disapproval, instead of blocking them one at a time as permitted under current law. The ability to reach back and place a multitude of an Administration's significant rules under the harsh provisions of the Congressional Review Act is dangerous and outrageous. In the interest of public health and environmental protections that keep us all safe, please oppose the Midnight Rules Relief Act and vote NO.

A resolution of disapproval containing dozens, if not hundreds, of administrative rules finalized over the previous potentially six months or more that dealing with the environment, public health, labor, education, and a myriad of other issues would get merely 10 hours of debate. Frankly, neither the full content of the resolution nor its sweeping implications would receive anything like the scrutiny such a draconian measure deserves. In marked contrast, the very rules targeted by such a resolution would have been many years in the making and have had public engagement as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws. Even worse than ``repealing'' in one fell swoop safeguards developed over the years is the CRA's requirement that an agency may not reissue the rule in ``substantially the same form.'' In essence, proponents of this bill seek a permanent 11th-hour veto of essential safeguards, as Congress would never likely successfully re-legislate dozens or hundreds of rules.

There is no plausible reasonable governance justification for Congress to repeal a substantially large number of rules in one blunt measure. The various concerns raised to justify this amendment to the CRA are a pure fallacy. Proponents of H.R.77 presume that ``midnight rules,'' that is, rules finalized towards the end of a presidential term, lack the quality of analysis required in the rule-making process that helps justify regulations. However, most rules finalized in the last months of an administration, irrespective of political party, have gone through multiple years of review and processing, sometimes predating the administration's releasing the final rule.

The bill would also risk encouraging members of Congress to engage in ``horse trading'' to add still more rules to the en bloc disapproval resolution until enough votes have been gathered to ensure the resolution's passage. Indeed, this approach to policymaking cannot be defended as superior to the careful process undertaken by regulatory agencies for each separate rule.

In its current iteration, the CRA is an extremely blunt instrument that can permanently damage crucial public health and safety measures. It disregards the extensive work and expertise that went into the rulemaking process, limits transparency in the political process, devalues public participation in rulemaking, and provides no judicial review. This legislative proposal would only intensify the dramatic and problematic consequences of the CRA by allowing Congress to bundle rules into one single resolution of disapproval.

We strongly urge you to oppose the Midnight Rules Relief Act and reject its false and misleading rhetoric, which is unrelated to the real problems of excessive and systemic delay in the regulatory process. Sincerely, Brielle L. Green, Esq., Earthjustice, Policy & Legislation, Senior Legislative Counsel, Regulatory Reform & Access to Justice.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source