Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

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

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humor that came from the other side of the aisle. It had me in stitches. I don't really believe that the gentleman was chasing me around because he wanted to sign on as a cosponsor of my single-subject rule. He knows where to find me. I am in the committees with him. He could have done it. He didn't do it. What I do find is this is a problem for me because I had the Democratic debate bingo card going, and I was feeling pretty good because he did mention ``Elon Musk'' five times. He mentioned ``billionaire'' three times and ``unelected billionaire'' one time. I had those on my card. Words I didn't have include ``Muskovite,'' and I should have had that because he used that in Judiciary Committee earlier today. I also didn't have ``flood the zone,'' and I also didn't have ``gobstopped.'' I missed those on the bingo card for today. I do find really intriguing his attempts to try to distract us from what this bill does. The last thing I will say here before I yield to my friend from California is that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned omnibus bills, these omnibus bills that have everything in them, and he called them moronic. No doubt, I agree with him. The Inflation Reduction Act was moronic. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have mentioned several rules that Democrats particularly favor: bank fee regulation, maybe something about lead pipe regulation, and drinking water regulation. These aren't legislation. These are regulations. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: If you are afraid to vote on them, you are going to stick them in this midnight rules reversion. This is what I would submit: When all legislative authority is delegated to the bureaucratic agencies--Elon Musk isn't the fourth branch of government. He is not. Scholars have said and written for 30 years about the administrative state effectively being the fourth branch of government. When my colleagues look at what scholars have said about that and are delegating that, my Democratic colleagues should just fess up and say: We are afraid. We are afraid to put the CFPB bill on the floor that would reduce the fees. We are afraid of doing that because we might be held responsible by our constituents. That is what the minority is claiming that we want. In reality, Democrats would rather have nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats govern this country. That is what my Democratic colleagues want. Mr. Speaker, when one looks at that, I find myself saying: If Democrats want to preserve the separation of powers, it may be gone, but we can actually reinstitute it. It is not three coequal branches of government. That is not what the Founders intended. The Founders are very clear in the Constitutional Convention that Article I, that branch, which happens to be this branch, was meant to be the most powerful, and why? It was closest to the people. Why was that important? They wanted this group of people to be actually bound to the people, be closest to the people. When Members do what the Democrats want to do, which is to actually 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. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, surely, it must have snowed in Arizona last night. I thought I heard the gentleman agree with Steve Bannon. Hell must have frozen over is all I can say. Now, here is the deal. We just heard the gentlewoman talk about how this bill would strip away robust debate. No, it won't. It won't do that. You can debate these regulations under this provision. There will be debate. The same rules remain in place, but what she actually aggrandized and what the gentleman has been aggrandizing all day is bureaucratic control of regulatory schemes. That is what they are promoting. They want the bureaucrats to control with us not having adequate opportunity to review those. 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. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when I consider everything that was just said and what a travesty this bill is and how hardened and offensive this bill is, I find it intriguing. Just like I am not sure I can accept that he was chasing me down because he wanted to sign on to my single-subject bill, I am not sure that his math is right on the 10 seconds to discuss and debate each bill.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. No. You had your 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, this bill has the potential to bring back into control and authority the legislative power that has been so wrongfully and wholly without oversight delegated to these agencies that are out there. It has resulted, under Democrat and Republican administrations, in regulations that impact every aspect of every Americans' life, and they have been put together by unelected bureaucrats. There is a reason that people said we have had enough of it. That is one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. My colleagues across the aisle don't want to accept that, but the bottom line is this: The meddling that goes on in every aspect of your life they want to control whether you can have a gas heater in your home. They don't want that, but by golly they are going to pass an omnibus bill that spends trillions of dollars and then they are going to complain because we are bundling a few regulations together. There is no requirement that you bundle every regulation together. There is no requirement that you bundle all of them together. There is no requirement that you bundle two together. This bill merely allows that to take place. I have mentioned several of what those rules may be that would actually be within the same subject even, but the bottom line is this: If we don't do it, the bureaucrats are going to continue to run this place. They are going to run the country, and the American people will have no recourse. This gives them recourse. We are the ones who are elected, not the bureaucrats. If you want the $5 CFPB rule, then go ahead and introduce it. Don't complain to me, oh, gosh, your Speaker won't let it in. Yeah. I know how that goes. I have been here when there has been a Democrat Speaker. You know what? The pendulum swings back and forth, but what shouldn't swing back and forth is legislative authority. We are the preeminent, predominant power amongst the separation of powers, the three branches of government, and there should not be four. Now, scholars will tell you there is a fourth. It is the administrative state. This curbs the administrative state. That is why this is so important. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support and pass this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. 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. BIGGS of Arizona. 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.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, neither the United States nor Israel recognize the legitimacy of the ICC. We are not members. The ICC has no authority to violate the sovereignty of either of those nations. This bill is essential for protecting American citizens, servicemembers, our allies, especially Israel, from these politically motivated, punitive prosecutions by the ICC. Israel and its leaders have an inherent right to defend themselves against these terrorist attacks that occurred from Hamas, and they get to also attempt to rescue these hostages, but the ICC's attempts to interfere with Israel's self-defense and issue arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and their minister of defense, undermines justice. As the only Member of Congress who actually attended the Rome Conference that formulated the ICC document in the summer of 1998, I can attest that the ICC is hopelessly biased and is illegitimate. It claims authority it does not have. It attempts to claim jurisdiction and issue sanctions against Israel as we could have predicted, and many of us did who were at that conference watching this ICC form. The ICC is an institution without a mandate from the international community, and the ICC must understand that the United States will not allow its overreach to harm U.S. citizens or our allies.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, again, our hearts go out to the Laken Riley family. We think about them. This bill is named for Laken Riley, but it has an impact far greater. Once again, we must acknowledge that we can no longer take the famed empty words of sympathy from those across the aisle in the Biden-Harris administration because they refuse to do anything meaningful to stop the carnage or even slow down the border surge that has been going on. Illegal aliens who commit crimes must not be released into our communities. Our colleagues cannot even use the term of art that is in the statute: ``illegal alien.'' They cannot even use that. They conflate legal immigration with those who enter our country illegally. They call them undocumented immigrants. That is what they do. They don't ever stand up for the American people. Instead of taking the mandate of an overwhelming popular vote victory and electoral college victory by this incoming President Donald Trump on the issue of border security, they let it go. They ignore it. In fact, places like San Diego--you know what San Diego just did? They declared themselves a super sanctuary city. Nobody is going to be held for ICE. You get to explain to the victim of Nicholas Jose Francisco, a 25- year-old illegal alien from Guatemala, charged with molesting and raping a 5-year-old little girl. In New York City, there is more than 58,000 illegal aliens with a criminal record who have been charged with a crime on their streets. You get to explain and apologize to the victim of the 31-year-old illegal alien from Mexico who was recently arrested for breaking into a woman's home and raping her. This goes on and on because my colleagues don't want to hold these people in detention.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, you get to explain to the victim of the 28-year-old illegal alien who tortured and burglarized a Dallas woman just a month or two ago. You can stand up and say we are not bringing meaningful legislation. You can stand up and say that you feel real bad for Laken Riley and her family. How about all the other victims of illegal aliens who have committed crimes? You know the first thing they did that was illegal? They entered our country. Democrats want to protect them. Republicans want the law enforced.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate my friend, Art Del Cueto, who is retiring from the U.S. Border Patrol after more than 20 years of service. Art's life and career have shaped his views and understanding of the dynamics of the southern border. He grew up in Douglas, Arizona, directly across the border from Agua Prieta, Sonora, and freely shares stories of how different the border was in the days of his youth. For the last 20 years, he has patrolled in the Tucson sector, which is consistently one of the busiest sectors in the country. Art has made it his mission to ensure every American can understand the need for border security and is a prolific commentator in the news and hosts ``The Green Line'' podcast, bringing the truths of the border straight to the listeners. Art is one of the most knowledgeable people on the Arizona border. He has hosted President Trump, Vice President-elect Vance, incoming border czar Tom Homan, and dozens of Members of Congress. There are countless stories I could share from these trips, such as watching an alien shimmy over the border wall to be promptly apprehended by Border Patrol, meeting coyotes waiting on the Mexican side for the opportunity to cross alien groups, discovering a group of young women and children left alone in the desert by their smugglers and simply told by the coyotes to wait for Border Patrol. Mr. Speaker, these examples are only a small fraction of what Art has seen over the course of his career. He is a great friend to me and a true American patriot. I am grateful to know him and honored to share his story here with you today. I wish him the best as he moves into the next chapter of his life.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1616, I call up the bill (H.R. 115) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 115, the Midnight Rules Relief Act. This is an important piece of legislation that will allow Congress to more effectively and efficiently oversee Federal agency rulemaking. Under the Congressional Review Act, known as the CRA, executive agencies must report all promulgated rules to both Chambers of Congress. This reporting requirement allows Congress to properly consider Federal regulations before they take effect. The CRA gives Congress the ability to pass a joint resolution to prevent an agency's rule from taking effect. The CRA's disapproval mechanism gives Congress a critical check on Federal administrative overreach. Currently, however, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a single, separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to render unenforceable. This one-by-one limited joint resolution under the CRA slows Congress' oversight of agency rulemaking. Its inefficiency is most clear during the midnight rulemaking period of the last year of a President's term, when executive agencies historically issue substantially more regulations that last year of a President's term. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this midnight rulemaking period by allowing Congress to introduce joint resolutions covering multiple agency rules during the final year of a President's term. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that this bill is only an attempt to slow down agency rulemaking or disincentivize Federal agencies from issuing rules on important issues, but that is incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill designed to slow down rulemaking. Rather, this bill would merely allow Congress to more efficiently exercise the oversight authority it already has and respond to the influx in agency regulations during the midnight hours of a President's term. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's just address the previous speaker first of all. We already have a 60-day legislative lookback in the law. We are not changing that. That is apparently an objection that my colleague had. We already have in the law that a substantially similar rule cannot be introduced if the Congress says no-go on it. Apparently, that is what my colleague's beef is. That is already the law. What we are allowing now is for Congress to actually look at more than just a piece-by-piece, one here, one there, maybe you get a dozen to 18. You really don't ever get much more than that in a congressional lookback in the CRA. Let's review what the Biden administration has done. The rules that they have promulgated in the last year alone have an economic impact of $1.4 trillion on the economy. There are individual bills in this packet here. This is just for the last little bit, the lookback period. There are 68, and that is with 30 days to go. There are 68 of them in here that I am holding up. One of my favorites is the $45 billion boondoggle that they have got here. It is a rule, and $45 billion is the impact on that one. Let me see if I can read it. It is the national primary drinking water regulation for lead. Here is the deal: It doesn't get looked at under the Democrats' concerns, but it does under ours. Why do you need to look at it? It just seems to be common sense that if you are going to have a $45 billion rule, maybe we ought to get to look at that. We are going to come together to actually be able to effectively and efficiently put together these rules in a package. They are going to be marked up. They are going to be heard. If we think that it is justified, we get a chance to vote on it. Members can make their amendments to it. They can do everything else that we can have in the process, but the current methods that we are doing right now slow this down so much that we effectively review just a handful of rules, literally, of the dozens and dozens and hundreds of rules. Like I say, there have been 68 in the last little bit here that this administration put through. When my colleagues across the aisle start talking about this rule or that rule, I challenge them to go through here and tell me how many of these rules they have even looked at. Are they aware of what is even in these rules? Are they aware of how much they are going to cost? Are they aware of the impact that it has on the working individual or an industry or the American people as a whole? No, they don't have that. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this bill. I am going to leave it there. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I first got to Congress, I was sitting in the Senator from Utah Mike Lee's office, and I said, hey, I don't understand this. You have got a stack on your desk here of about 4 inches, and yet you have a 13-foot tall stack of documents right next to it. What does that symbolize? He said, the 4 inches are the total number of laws passed by Congress in the last year. The 13 feet is the total number of rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies. That is what we are facing. When my colleague says, hey, we can look at 25--do you know what the high recently has been? It has been 17 in a year, 17 individual ones. Guess what? My bill doesn't say you can't look at these. In fact, it does the opposite. It encourages us to look at the rules. If they are good, they will stand. If they are not good, they will fail. That is what Congress is supposed to do. Another colleague would say, we are trying to expand Congress' power. No. The Founders were clear. In the Constitutional Convention it isn't three separate coequal branches. It is three separate but unequal branches. The legislative branch is supposed to be the most powerful. That is why it got funding. That is why the House is supposed to do the funding because we are the people's House. We are ostensibly closest to the people in the Federal Government. They don't want you to look at the rules promulgated by unelected bureaucrats. They want you to just blithely go ahead with it. That is the problem. So when my colleague stands up and says, well, I don't know the cost. Maybe that cost is $45 billion. Maybe Biggs is right, maybe he is wrong. I don't know what is in the regulation. Maybe it is good, maybe it is not. The essence of that argument is that we really shouldn't look at it. Really? Don't look at the law? That is not what we are saying. We are saying, indeed, look at the regulation, and let's get as many regulations as we possibly can and look at them. That is what we are trying to do. Let me give you one right now. This is another one right here. If you happen to be fortunate enough to buy a piece of property, no matter how large or how small, and you can pay cash for it--and oddly enough, I was able to buy a couple of acres of property not long ago--it was actually a long time ago, about 25 years ago now, back before property blew up in cost in my area--well, if I were to pay cash now, that transaction is going to be heavily regulated, and it is going to cost the economy and cost taxpayers $2.2 billion. By the way, these aren't Biggs' numbers, these are the Biden administration's numbers. When the Biden administration's number says we imposed $1.4 or $1.37 trillion on our regulations, that is not me talking. That is the Biden administration admitting that their regulatory impact is $1.4 trillion. Maybe we should look at that. Let me just add this: This notion that, gee, we need to look at these one at a time, and if we only get through 16 or 17 that is really odd because--it is ironic, actually. Tomorrow probably or the next day, you are going to see an omnibus, a short-term omnibus, come to the floor. They are calling it a CR, but it is really a short-term omnibus. In that bill are loads and loads of spending, loads and loads of policy. Guess what? They are all going to vote for it. They just don't want you to look back at the rules that this administration has put into place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from New York says we ought to know what is in the rule, he doesn't know diddly crap about the lead pipe rule that he keeps referring to. He doesn't know diddly about any of these other rules. He has admitted that. He doesn't know about them, doesn't know how much they cost, and he doesn't know whether they would have a good cost-benefit analysis. Guess what? Most of this body doesn't either. What he is arguing is you really shouldn't look at it because this bill does not change regular order. It does not change regular order. That means somebody is going to be drafting this bill. It means somebody is going to debate this bill in a committee. It means somebody is going to debate it on the floor, and that means you are going to have an opportunity to look at these rules, and if it has benefit, you can amend it. You can amend that bill to remove that from your CRA. That is the way to get this through. I do find it--I have got to mention it again-- laughable to say you shouldn't combine 20 rules that are made by unelected officials who we haven't seen their rule, we haven't participated in their rulemaking process generically--that is normal-- and then stand up here and tell us we shouldn't have that lookback. We shouldn't do that, when awkwardly, those same folks are going to vote on a massive omnibus spending package in the next 48 hours. They haven't seen the language. You know why I know they haven't seen the language? I know because it isn't out yet. I haven't seen the language, but they are going to vote for it. They don't want you to know what is in these rules promulgated by unelected officials. That is the doggone shame of it all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we can walk around this barn all day long. When you say, look, we want you to do this on a single rule over and over again, that is not real. That is the way it has been. We don't know. Congress doesn't know. That is why your constituents come up and say to you, hey, why is this going on? Why is now a financial adviser going to be regulated very tightly to the tune of $7.2 billion adjudicated by the Biden administration? Why is that? Well, I don't know. Well, you are in Congress. Well, yeah, but it is a rule. You know, we put it on autopilot because we think the experts really are experts. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. One thing this bill does is it says look at what the bureaucracy is doing. Look at what the fourth branch of government is doing here. Look at this. If my colleague from New York says, hey, we don't know if something is good or bad, let me reiterate: We are not changing regular order. We are not changing regular order. Someone has to draft the bill. You are going to debate the bill. You are going to debate it in committee. You are going to debate it in rules. You are going to debate it on the floor. There will be opportunities to amend it. That is called regular order. His criticism of our leadership for not bringing 12 bills, I am always there. I am always critical of it. This is probably the only thing that we have agreed on today so far. Well, his party did the same just a couple years ago, too. It goes back and forth. There is a problem with that on both sides, but what I am encouraging and what this bill encourages is a real lookback, a real follow through on regular order, and a real understanding of what the rules are doing to the American people. Some of them may be excellent. Some of them may not be so, but this is an opportunity to actually get Congress doing its job. Maybe that is why there is reticence to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here we go, Mr. Speaker. We are going to walk around the barn one more time. Let's go around that barn just one more time and say the same thing again. My colleague and I are obviously diametrically opposed. He thinks that if this bill passes you won't look back, you won't specifically look at any iterated rule. I am telling you, nothing seems further from the truth than that to me because here is the deal: Somebody is going to have to draft that bill. They are going to have looked at some of these regulations. They then are going to bring it to the committee chairs, you are going to be sitting in a committee, and you are going to have a markup on this. The gentleman from New York knows this because we both sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I sit on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and we have almost indeterminable debates in markups. They go forever. Everybody gets 5 minutes for everything, for every amendment. If you have 25 rules sitting in there, guess what? You are going to have everybody in that committee probably taking 5 minutes a piece on all 25 rules and fully examining that rule and deciding whether they want to keep it in the CRA. Right now do you know what happens? You might look at as many as 15 or 20 rules per Congress. That is it. We are talking literally hundreds and hundreds of rules that pass that are promulgated. Some may be great. Some may be bad. What this bill does is it encourages Congress to finally do its job. I am all in on doing the 12 approps bills separately, but even with the 12 approps bills, you will have multiple lines that you are looking at, and you won't necessarily see all those lines. It is time that we start looking at the rules and see what the administrative state is doing to Americans. That is the bottom line. They don't want that. They don't want that. That is a crying shame to me. It is a crying shame. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad we agreed finally on the second thing, and that is we are going around in circles. I want to make a couple quick points as I round the barn one more time. The most CRAs done in a year was in the 115th Congress. Mr. Speaker, 17, only 17--which by the way, that is the same year that Mike Lee had 13 feet of regulations promulgated by the administrative state. I just want to remind you what happens in the last year and why this is critical. Regulatory promulgation kind of goes at a flat line. Then that last year of a Presidency, of an administration, boom, it spikes up. It spikes up. That is the reality. That is why we have always had the 60-day lookback. If it extends now to the whole year, if it were to do that, you are going to be dealing with a spike. I am just getting back to this point. If the most you have ever looked at ever is 17 in a year, then you don't know what the other hand is doing, the other hand being the administrative state. I am just saying let's do it. Let's look at them, and let's make this work. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to pass this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, so you have thousands of regulations in 2024 promulgated, thousands, impacting us by $1.4 trillion. The most CRAs you have ever had is 17, and we are told, oh, just trust the administrative state. I can't do that. My constituents can't do that. Americans can't do that. We are trying to come up with a reasonable approach to make this more workable, and that is what this bill is. That is what H.R. 115 is. It encourages Congress to do its job. That is why this is so important. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in favor of H.R. 115. Let's get this passed and let's make Congress the legislative branch it is supposed to be per the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.