state governors. it costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling and helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today. >> the housel be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of governing congress -- covering congress like no other. since 1969, we have provided balance, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policies are debated and decided all with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> a conversation on regulatory policy. our guest is a policy analyst at george washington university. good morning.

host: a recent "wall street journal" headline. trump used a 1996 law to overturn obama-era regulations and biden aides hope to stop the republican from doing it again if he wins. the 1996 law that the "wall street journal" is referring to there is the congressional review act. what is it? why do we have it? guest: so the congressional review act was enacted in 1996 as a way for congress to retain oversight of federal regulation and so it's kind of an ex pabssive -- expansive law. it can cover any regulation, the broadest definition of regulation that we have, under the administrative procedure act. and so when regulations are disapproved using the c.r.a., agencies are barred from reissuing them in a substantially similar format and the regulation is taken off the books immediately. host: maybe we should start with what are regulations? guest: absolutely.

host: and who promulgates regulations and what is that process? guest: so regulations effect your everyday life. it's making sure the bacon you have for breakfast this morning is safe. it's making sure your dish washers are energy efficient. regulations are issued by federal agencies to implement the laws that congress passes. host: why was it felt in 1996 that a congressional review act was -- why do we need to renew these regulations if it goes through a big review process and a public comment process, when these regulations are being promulgateed? guest: that's a great question. this came following a supreme court case in the 1990's that eliminated the legislative veto and basically said that congress needs to pass laws to change agency actions and so the congress has the congressional re-- passed the congressional review act to give them a fast-track procedure for reviewing agency regulations. host: but it's a procedure that hasn't been used very often since 1996. but was used a decent amount

right after donald trump comes into office. guest: exactly. host: explain why and how it's been used. guest: as you mentioned, it really was not used that frequently until 2017. we only saw one rule overturned in 2021. but then -- 2021 -- 2001. but then when trump came into power, congress saw this tool and took advantage of it to overturn 15 regulations from the very end of the obama administration. host: what did they target? what regulations did they want to overturn? guest: they targeted regulations that really run the gamut of policy areas generally from labor and employment to finance regulations, to the environment, to education. and so they targeted regulations in those spaces. host: a congressional review act overturning of a rule seems to be most useful for when an administration comes in of a different party and has a congress who can actually use this legislative power that's

also of that same party of the presidency. guest: right. host: so compare when else this has been used then. how many other times since 1996 have we seen this been put in place. guest: as i briefly mentioned, we saw this used once at the beginning of the bush administration in 2001, overturning a clinton era ergonomics rule from osha and then the biden administration in congress in 2021 also used this to overturn three trump regulations. those were -- one was environment, one was equal employment, those kinds of things. and so these administrations will use them to advance their regulatory priorities in that way and i'll speak a little bit about why we didn't see anything at the beginning of the obama administration. it's because the c.r.a. has been traditionally thought of as a deregulatory tool and we think that the obama administration was a little bit shy about using this deregulatory tool and preventing agencies from taking substantially similar actions in

the future. host: i know it's a small sample size, of how many rules have been overturned, but is it mostly environmental rules that get targeted? workplace safety rules? what is usually the low hanging fruit for a c.r.a. overturning of a law? or rule, i should say. guest: that's a really good question. as we mentioned, the trump administration issued the most -- or congress under the trump administration passed the most of these c.r.a. resolutions and those were targeting the labor space. but as i alluded to, they target really any policy area. but i think something that's interesting to note is that a lot of these rules are not major rules so a major rule is something that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more every year. only a handful of the rules that have actually been overturned by the c.r.a. were major rules which is a little bit counterintuitive. you would think they would use such an easy tool to get a quick policy win on a big topic.

but it's really been more of these smaller rules that we've seen. host: what's an kpwafrpl of a major rule -- an example of a major rule? guest: let's think about something that just came out this past week. i think the federal trade commission's noncompete clause rule is likely a major rule, if i remember correctly. because those are rules that have a large impact on the environment. or on the economy. host: when we're judging major, not major rules, it's monetary impact and is it cost is usually what they're going for or is it benefit as well? guest: that's a really good question. i don't remember off the top of my head, but i think it is just annual economic impact, whether that is costs or benefits. host: major rules and minor rules, what's -- the congressional review sabgt and how it's been used, that's our topic until the end of our program this morning, sarah hay is our guest from george washington university.

it's the regulatory studies center there. taking your phone calls. as usual, phone lines split by political party, (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002. she's one of the authors of a report on how the c.r.a. has been used across administrations. what do you focus on at the regulatory senter? guest: we're a nonpartisan academic center at george washington university. we do that through studying regulation like these conversations we're having here today. host: what is the best way to improve regulatory policy in your mind right now? if you were the regulatory czar of the biden administration? guest: that's a great question. i'll think about that and get back to it later. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202)

748-8002. was there a specific incident that jump-started the event law that became the congressional review act in 1996? what was happening at the time? guest: that's a good question. i mean, the politics at the time were the clinton administration was in power and there were republicans coming into congress but, yeah, i'm not 100% sure about that background there. what i can tell is you that the c.r.a. has been really used effectively since then and something interesting to note as well is that, beyond being used to overturn regulations like this, members of congress use it as a political messaging tool to some extent where they'll introduce a resolution targeting an administration action, even though it might not pass congress or it might not be signed into law. we've seen congress this session introducing a lot of these actions, targeting biden administration regulations and all of the ones that have passed have been vetoed by the

president because presumably he doesn't want to overturn regulations issued by his own administration. so it's another interesting facet of this tool. host: is there a statute of limitations on how long a regulation can be on the books before it's safe from a congressional review act review? guest: yes. there's a couple components of your question here. tpa*eufrt first of all, -- first of all, the c.r.a. has a 60-day action window. once an agency issues a regulation and it's reported to congress, then congress has about 60 days to take action, give or take recess days. but then there's also the lookback period which is the end of a session of congress, the last 60 working days of the session, whether that's legislative days in the house or session days in the senate, congress can review those rules that are issued during that period in the subsequent session of congress. so those kind of have a grace period to give congress its full 60 days of review. so that's why the c.r.a. is particularly potent during these

political transitions that we've been talking about. host: for that time frame for how long you can do this, take us to what generally happens at the end of an administration or the final year of a potential administration that may not be re-elected in the beginning of an administration. specifically, coming back to that "wall street journal" headline, biden is racing to trump-proof his agenda. what is he trying to do here? guest: so as i just talked about, the lookback period. that period, those regulations are vulnerable in the next congress if there is a political transition. and so what we've seen the biden administration do this year, that's really unique, is they issued 34 economically significant rules in april, which is the most in our history of data tracking at the regulatory studies center. and so you can kind of use that as a political signal for the biden administration that they're trying to solidify their top regulatory priorities before the earliest estimates of that lookback window.

the earliest estimate of the lookback window is late may this year. and so any regulations that are finalized before then are almost certainly safe from the c.r.a. host: questions coming in from social media. jim in pennsylvania saying, i do ho your segment is replayed many times, every time someone says -- host: in terms of how much the public pays attention to regulations versus how much congress and staff is paying attention to regulations, what do you generally see here? is this a hot topic?

guest: it's definitely a to the topic in the regulatory space -- a hot topic in the regulatory space right now but regulations aren't what we learn about in our government classes in high school. so i think it's a great thing that these conversations are being picked up by your show, by "wall street journal" right now and really engaging the public in this law that used to be considered really obscure. host: linda in sanford, north carolina. independent. linda, you're on with sarah hay. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. and for the most part i don't agree with anything on c-span but for the most part, you know, i rate it about a 75. host: on agreement or disagreement? caller: about 75 -- y'all are a little too liberal for me. i will be very honest. because i am a 73-year-old american. my family members and my husband's family members have

fought and died and give their life for this country. and i agree with the topic today. i'm going to stay on topic. biden regulations and potential rollbacks under trump. biden ain't my president. and biden -- everything biden does, when trump gets back in there, he's going to roll it back. and those people are a bunch of thugs and all that, i'm going to get off the subject a little bit here, but all this protest stuff, october 7 and january 6, the same people. host: linda, i want to keep it to regulations. because we have sarah hay here to talk about regulatory policy. how much, if this story is talking about what the biden administration ising trying -- is trying to do ahead of a potential trump administration,

how much have candidate donald trump's staff talked about targeting specific regulations? how much are members of congress looking to target specific regulations? guest: which ones is the hard question because we don't know what is going to fall into the lookback period because we don't know when it's going to be but what i can say is that i've heard from colleagues at the government accountability office that they are getting a lot more requests from members about whether certain things count as rules and could be subject to the c.r.a. host: this is dan in palm bay, florida. republican. dan, we're talking regulations with sarah hay. caller: hi, yeah i wondering, i was wondering what regular laces -- regulations, what biden regulations are they planning on handcuffing donald trump with? i mean, don't they realize that donald trump's economy was way better than joe biden's? everyone sees that. i mean, there's no denying that. unless people were just

tkhraourbal like your guest appears to be or she's -- host: dan, i think our guest knows quite a bit about regulations. handcuffing the next administration with regulatory policy, can an outgoing administration do that? guest: not really. so there are a couple different ways to overturn regulations, even beyond the c.r.a. and so those actually exist in all three branches of government. so agencies could start another notice in comment rulemaking process in which they, again, draft another regulation, receive more comments on it and issue another regulation that contradicts the old one and takes its place. there's litigation is an option and then congress can pass legislation to say agencies can or cannot do these things, as well as using appropriations to say, that's a nice rule you got there, but you can't use any of your funding to implement it. so there are ways to overturn regulations. the reason we're talking about the c.r.a. right now is because of the approaching lookback

window and how this is a much faster process than any of those that i laid out to overturn regulations. host: when you promulgate a regulation, you mentioned the comment period. who generally comments on regular stphraeugs is it just industries that are impacted? are there certain people that you keep finding pop up in the comments section, can any americans comment on any proposed regulation? guest: any americans can and should comment on proposed regulations. that's a really great way to get involved in the government. and we see comments come from a range of actors, definitely industry groups, as well as nonprofits, a lot of them will organize what we call mass comment campaigns where -- it used to be called postcard campaigns where you'd send in a postcard to the agency but now it's a form letter you type in online at regulations.gov and everyday americans, academics like us comment on regulations. and everyone can and should. i really believe that's a good

way to get involved in the regulatory process. i can also mention that the biden administration has been taking steps to increase public engagement in the regulatory process through making opportunities for public engagement known through tools like the unified agenda and just being more cognizant of getting new stakeholders involved in the process. host: academics comments. you said we comment. so what's the last regulation that you commented on? guest: i actually commented on a financial crimes enforcement network regulation about anti-money laundering in residential real estate. i just thought it sounded interesting and it was a good way to practice using the bipartisan tools of regulatory analysis to assess these regulations and provide some feedback to the agency that they might not have considered. host: does the agency generally pull back a proposed rule after comments and make changes based on what people say? or how often do they just say, thanks for the comments, and

we're going to go ahead with our rule anyway? guest: agencies are required to consider all of the comments that they receive and incorporate them into the final rules so you'll see in the preamble of a regulation there's a long beginning of a regulation and it just talks about what the agency's trying to do and in final rules they'll explain the comments they received and what they did to react to the comments. host: so this is regulations.gov. how does this work? we'll show viewers the website. it's literally regulations.gov. easy enough to find. if a viewer wants to comment or find out what the proposed rules are, what do they do? guest: as you -- if you scroll down on the website, you'll see that there's a bunch of these hyperlinks here and you can see there's a section on the side that should say comments due soon or something like that. so if you click on those, you'll see a list of the regulations that are available for comment right now. host: including a proposed merger of anchorage financial

network credit union located in chicago with great lakes credit union in illinois, a community re-investment act. agency information collections activities, proposals, submissions, etc., and so on down the line. this is the regulation, the comments are due today on these pieces of legislation. guest: if that's what you clicked on, those are ones that are due today and you can navigate the website to find comment periods that are due further in the future and find the regulations that you really care about. host: if you were to click on one, you simply just type in what your comments are about it? is there a word limit when you do it? guest: no word limit. you can type in whatever you want. you can add attachments. i've seen a comment from an organization with up to 20 attachments linked to it. so you can add data and what the agencies really look for is data and your situated knowledge of how this regulation would effect you as a real person.

host: regulations.gov. back to your phone calls. this is jacob in alexandria, virginia. independent. you're on with sarah hay. caller: my question is about schedule s. you know that o.p.m. has a rule called risk, reduction in force, why wouldn't they just changed r.i.f. rules instead of showing an executive order schedule? host: i'm not swhaour that question was? do you know? guest: i know about schedule f but i'm not an expert on o.p.m. regulations. schedule f was a proposal from the trump administration to reclassify some federal employees basically as more similar to appointees and i know that o. p.m. has started issuing some regulations regarding schedule f. that's the extent to my knowledge on those policy issues. at the reg study center we focus on regulatory process rather than individual topics. host: the national federation for federal employees talking about schedule f. a campaign to stop schedule f.

to protect the civil service from political corruption. saving the civil service act, h.r. 1002. jacob, how are you -- how did you get involved in this schedule f issue? caller: i work with a bunch of federal employees who are freaking bout getting fired if trump gets elected or re-elected. but there's something called the reduction in force rules in place which was issued by o.p. ph-frpt. it has all these complicated hoops you have to jump through. they can't be a veteran and if they have more years of service over someone you're trying to get rid of, you can't get rid of that person before getting rid of the person with more years of service. every president complains about these rules but they never seem to change them and i'm wondering if it's because it requires congressional review? guest: i think you're using the term congressional review slightly different than this act but it would be an area where congress could introduce legislation on the topic. host: congress can review anything at any time, is what you're saying?

to reduce regulation? guest: i believe so. host: howard in north carolina. democrat, good morning. caller: top of the morning to you. good conversation. we just had a person who said something about they're not liberal and all that. but will this be considered under the c. r-frpt a. where -- c.r.a. where the biden administration passed the pact act for the military and burn pitts? and -- pits? and do this all comes into the c.r.a. wherein the republicans are giving rights to appliances and all that stuff, to give them rights to have? i mean, i know that's ridiculous, but appliances got more rights now than the women in america. and i thank you. host: i think it comes back to rules versus laws and what the congressional review act is targeting. guest: exactly. host: if you can go over that again. guest: so what we learned from school house rock is that congress passes laws and those

laws then go to the agencies and the agencies figure out how to implement those laws by issuing regulations. and so those regulations are basically the specific steps that we take to make sure those laws are fulfilled. and so the congressional review act specifically is a form of checks and balances. in which congress can take a look at those regulations that the agencies are issuing. host: barbara wants to go back to what regulations we're talking about today specifically when it comes to the biden administration. as you pointed out, we don't know what -- if donald trump is elected and if there's a republican congress, what they would target, can't predict the future. but past is prologue here. what types of regulations do you think they would probably target? guest: yeah, i think just looking at the policy areas that were targeted by congress at the golf swing of the trump administration, we saw a lot of oversight on the labor

regulations, financial regulations and environment and natural resources. and i'll quickly note that those were interesting because those were from the department of the interior rather than the environmental protection agency. so looking at how we manage our natural resources. host: the biden administration rolled back many of the predecessor's, the trump administration's achievements. why would it be a problem if the successor rolled back many of biden's acts? we're talking about executive orders that were issued on the first day or the first couple days of the biden administration. we see this every new administration. so the difference between rolling back using executive orders and how easy that is, compared to the legislative process, through the c.r.a. guest: right. that gets into, there's all these different ways to enact policy and some of them are a lot more long -- they have a lot more longevity than others. so executive orders are very easy to repeal. they do a lot of that at the beginning of administrations.

and then legislation is, i mean, it's pretty hard to get something passed through congress. so laws are pretty hard to overturn and then regulations also have to go through the notice and comment process, again to get them overturned, unless we go through those other pathways we talked about earlier such as litigation or congressional action. or congressional legislative action i should say. host: phone numbers again if you want to join the conversation about regulations, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002. sarah hay is our guest of the regulator -- regulatory studies center at george washington university. how did you get involved in focusing on regulations as your day job? guest: honestly t just a job that opened up and i've since fallen in love with it. i think the thing that i find most interesting about regulation is that it's not something you learn about in your high school government classes. i really didn't understand the

full extent of how regulation really makes the government work and is the nuts and bolts of making the government work every day. something that i'm very passionate about is getting more people involved in the regulatory process and learning about this because this is how the government implements laws and how it works on the day to day basis. and so i think that's something really powerful and i'm really grateful that this program is talking to your viewers about regulation. host: was there one law that was passed that the regulatory promulgation around that law really interested you? what's an example? guest: something recently has been, we've been seeing a lot of regulations coming from the infrastructure investment and jobs act lately. and so those have been a lot of i think environmental regs as well. and so i think that's been interesting to watch the process. we saw the politics play out of getting that law passed and now we're seeing it come through in the federal register. host: are there regulations that

the supreme court has overturned? regulations -- [indiscernible] -- guest: the regulations definitely do get challenged in the supreme court. that's a little bit beyond the area of my expertise. i typically focus on how congress overturns regulations. but there's definitely evidence or those definitely go to the supreme court and there's also evidence that c.r.a. regulations have been used in some litigation as showing congressional intent. host: explain what congressional intent is. guest: congressional intent is basically, what did congress mean when they signed this law into action? and that gets to the heart of regulation because agencies have to show where their regulation comes from in the law and say, this is why we are allowed to issue this regulation. and so the c.r.a. resolutions recently have been used to show that, oh, congress disagrees with the agency issuing this regulation, thus that probably means that that was not their intent with the original legislation.

host: can congress step in and do that before a regulation is promulgateed? if the c.r.a. is used after a regulation is promulgated, is out there to kind of pull that back, is there a process midway through of, hey, i looked at regulations.gov, that wasn't congress' intent when we signed this bill into law, that regulation goes far beyond or 180 from what we wanted to do with this law? guest: members of congress can certainly submit comments on federal regulation and they do. but with the c.r.a. specifically, it only applies to final rules, you're not allowed to use it on proposed rules. host: how long does that process usually take, propose a final rule? guest: i think it takes about two years on average but it can really vary. there are some that go through quickly and there are some that have been in the process for 10 years. host: to paul in columbus, ohio. line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i have two questions. first, what is the most regulated area or areas? and then second, higher

education, how regulated is that area and what you see coming in the future? thank you. guest: that's a good question. regulation really does touch every aspect of american life. but particularly with regard to higher education i saw that a few weeks ago the biden administration issued a new regulation about student loans. so that's something that they're trying to accomplish through the regulatory process as well. host: there's not one agency that's known to issue the most regulations? guest: there's a handful that issue a lot of regulations. host: what are some examples? guest: the environmental protection agency for one does a lot of regulating. you see a lot of regulating with centers for medicare and medicaid. these really big programs that you think of. but a lot of agency does a lot of regulating. host: everybody generally knows what the e.p.a. or the agriculture department is. what is a lesser known agency that issues a lot of regulations? guest: that's a really good question. i don't know if it's super

lesser known but i know that occupational safety and health administration -- host: osha. guest: yes, they issue a lot of regulations regarding workplace safety. host: max is next out of georgia. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you both for taking my call. good morning both of you. as we look at these regulations, i think we have to remember two things. just look at the constitutionality of them. if these are powers being taken by the federal government that should be in the realm of the state government, that's something we need to look at and really act upon rolling back and giving these powers back to the states and to the people. second thing is that you have a concentration of people in washington, d.c., who don't have much experience in the regular life out in the united states,

in different states around the nation. they think of regulations or ideas that may not play well in d.c. but may not be too well received in different states. and that's another thing we need to look back. i don't have a problem with rolling back regulations. as long as we look at the institutionality of it -- constitutionality of it and if these powers are being usurped by the federal government or they should be up to the states. but thank you for taking my call and i appreciate it. host: thanks for that. state versus federal authorities here. guest: that would be a great thick to submit a -- thing to submit a public comment on. agencies are always looking for more perspectives on how they look at their regulations so i would encourage you to submit public comments on those regulations that you question. host: is there such a thing as a congressional review act, a state review act? do individual states do what congress is allowed to do here when it comes to state rules? guest: i'm not sure. that's a good question.

in america we have 50 different systems of regulation in all of the different states so it's a little bit hard to answer. host: when a resolution of disapproval is issued, when the c.r.a. process has happened and congress says that they want to pull back this rule and the new president, generally new president, agrees with it, how long does the agency have to unravel that rule and are some rules harder to unravel than others? guest: yeah, that's a really good question. my understanding is that when a resolution of disapproval is signed into law, the regulation basically ceases to exist immediately. and then the agency will have to take time to take it off the books as well. but it ceases to be effective immediately. host: has there been a tkr-frplt r.a. rule that's been -- c.r.a. rule that's been pulled back that holds up other rules and so other rules have to be pulled back because this one now goes away? are these rules built on top of

each other to regulate a law? guest: i don't know that that's a case and i think that goes to something we were talking about earlier that it's not been many major rules targeted. it's more the smaller regulations that certainly have a meaningful impact on people in those sectors but don't necessarily broadly effect the economy. and that's one theory as to why we haven't seen the net neutralities or the waters of the united states targeted by the c.r.a. is because they are expansive and could be hard town ralph and i'll also note that the c.r.a. only lets you target the regulation in its entirety. you can't pick and choose provisions of the regulation. and so you might take a look at something and say, oh, i really hate that provision, but i kind of like this other provision. and it might not be worth it to you to try to use the c. r.a. on that regulation, particularly since if a regulation is disapproved with the c.r.a., the agency is barred from reissuing it in substantially the same form. host: what is waters of the united states?

guest: that is a regulation that basically governs the navigable waterways of the united states. host: and one that's certainly a target a lot of controversy in recent years as i recall. guest: yes, it's been a target of controversy and members of congress have introduced c. r-frpt afrpt regulations -- c.r.a. regulations targeting waters of the united states but not all c.r.a. resolutions get a vote. we've seen 330c.r.a. resolutions introduced in congress but only 20 have ever passed. a lot of these are introduced and don't necessarily go anywhere. host: political messages? guest: to some extent, yeah. host: bill in albany, new york. republican, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, thank you. ms. hay, i would like to ask you a question about executive orders, please. when president biden came in on his first day, he did reverse many executive orders, right?

from -- guest: yes. caller: that president trump had in place. the one that i think affected us a lot was the pause on drilling of oil in the united states, whether it was private land or private-public land. government land. whatever. and i looked it up and i read it and i saw through it and there is that executive order there that did pause and that was when -- he did it for the environmental issues. we had to get our oil overseas and the prices more than tripled and that's when we started inflation because the trucks that were carrying the gas, the food for the stores, they had to raise their prices and we all know that, if we're all honest with ourselves. we know the prices went up. now, is that pause still on from what i understand? because i know we're exporting

oil now, right now, but is that drilling -- that paus for drilling still on the books in the executive order and if it is, why don't we take it off so the prices of oil come back down the way they were, they were at $2.10 under president trump. host: the question is, how long does an executive order last? caller: how long will this particular executive order is, it still on the books? do you know specifically about the pause on drilling tphoeult united states? -- oil in the united states? guest: there are so many executive orders issues, i'm not super familiar with that. they last as long as they are on the books. some of them are really durable. there's the executive order governing federal regulation, 12866, that has lasted since the 1990's. but then there's some that are less durable, like -- i think it was -- yeah, there's some executive orders that get overturned or removed every --

revoked every presidential administration. host: whitehouse.gov, executive order on protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis. january 20 of 2021. the first day of the biden administration. i believe that's the one that the caller was asking about. if you want to read up on that. white house. com. you can -- white.gov -- whitehouse.gov. caroline in baltimore. democrat, good morning. go ahead. caller: hi. good morning. and thank you for c-span. i joined this conversation late but i love it. i don't think people understand the power of regulations. i worked on some from the affordable care act and when the trump administration came in, when they could not get rid of the affordable care act, they started displantling it -- dismantling it through regulations. they started zeroing out fines that were supposed to help go towards paying down our premiums. they started with risk

corridors, they zeroed that on t and insurance agencies couldn't come up with their money. so we don't look at regulations, but when they can't get a way around a law or passing a law, regulations help them find a back door into doing what they need to do. and then also, one last comment. because it's public, i mean, public comments, i worked on short-term limited duration as far as health care. the majority of people said, please don't back this away. but under the trump administration they pushed it through anyway. i'm like, do people really read regulations and know how much really power is in the regulations? because they can do whatever they want to and don't have to go through congress. and that's my comment. host: thanks for the call. less than a minute left. sarah hay, a chance to respond. guest: i think you're absolutely right that regulations are the