2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Allowed Major Rules To Go Into Effect If Congress Does Not Vote On A Joint Resolution Nullifying Such Rule Within 70 Legislative Days. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "allow a major rule to go into effect if Congress does not vote on a joint resolution approving such a rule within 70 legislative days of receiving the relevant agency's report on the rule." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 213 to 221. [House Vote 260, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 200]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Require Agency Rules To Be Initiated By Senior Non-Career Appointees. In December 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for "the bill that would require that any rule issued by a federal executive agency under a notice or comment period be initiated only by senior non-career presidential appointees and signed by presidential appointees who have been confirmed by the Senate. It would also direct the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget to provide guidance to federal agencies on how to implement the bill's requirements, and to monitor agency compliance. The bill would create an exception for rules that affect public safety and security. It would require that an agency head notify OIRA of the reasons why complying with the requirement would impede public safety or security and require that such notifications be published in the Federal Register." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 203, thus it was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 717, 12/12/23; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 357]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Ensuring Accountability In Agency Rulemaking Act. In December 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee." The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 206 to 211. [House Vote 716, 12/12/23; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 357]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Require Congressional Approval To Implement Any "Major Rule" That Would Result In An Annual Economic Impact Of Over $100 Million, A Significant Price Increase, Or Adverse Effects On Competition Or Employment. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "require congressional approval of a joint resolution to implement any 'major rule' that has or is likely to result in an annual economic effect of at least $100 million; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on U.S. competition, employment, productivity or international competitiveness." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 221 to 210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 265, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277]
Republicans Sought To Limit The Power Of Executive Agencies In An Attempt To Decrease Policymaking Authority Of The Federal Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Republicans passed a measure Wednesday aimed at curtailing the power of executive agencies, part of the latest attempt in a years-long effort from conservatives to reduce the policymaking power of the federal government." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
President Biden Threatened To Veto The Bill, Arguing It Would Undermine Executive Agency Efforts And Place An Unnecessary Hurdle Into The Regulatory Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Biden administration issued a veto threat against the legislation and in a statement of administrative policy wrote that the bill would undermine agency efforts and put an 'unwieldy, unnecessary, and time-consuming hurdle' into the regulatory process." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
Republicans Argued That The Federal Bureaucracy Was Too Removed From Elected Officials Who Are Accountable To Voters And Claimed That Agencies Have Abused Policymaking Powers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans contend that the federal bureaucracy is too far removed from elected officials who are accountable to voters, and the power at the agency level has usurped the proper policymaking role of Congress." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
The Bill Would Permit Rules To Go Into Effect Without Congressional Approval For 90 Days If The President Were To Determine That The Rule Were Necessary For Specified Reasons. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would allow a major rule to go into effect without congressional approval for a 90-day period if the president determines by executive order that such rule is necessary because of an imminent threat or emergency, necessary for national security or the enforcement of criminal laws, or if the rule has been issued to implement an international trade agreement." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
According To The Bill, If Congress Were To Not Approve A Rule Within 70 Days, Similar Rules Would Be Prohibit For The Rest Of The Congressional Session. According to Congressional Quarterly, "If a joint resolution of approval for a major rule is not enacted within 70 legislative days, it would prohibit consideration of a joint resolution of approval for the same rule for the duration of the Congress." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
The Bill Would Exempt Rules Issued By The Federal Reserve Or The Federal Open Market Committee. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would exempt from the bill's requirements any rule issued by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Regulations From The Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Of 2023. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 495) that would provide for floor consideration of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (HR 277)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218 to 209. [House Vote 250, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Regulations From The Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Of 2023. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 495) that would provide for floor consideration of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (HR 277)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 216 to 209. [House Vote 249, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Regulations From The Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Of 2023. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (HR 277)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House rejected the rule by a vote of 206 to 220. [House Vote 248, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277]
Far-Right House Republicans Organized To Vote Against The Rule As A Rebuke To GOP Leadership For The Passage Of The Bipartisan Debt Limit Package And For Backtracking On A Promise to Vote On Gun Rights Legislation. According to Roll Call, "Hard-right House conservatives derailed legislation scheduled for floor votes Tuesday in a rebuke to GOP leadership. A group of House Republicans bucked their party to vote against a rule (H Res 463) devised by GOP leaders to take up legislation that included measures to rein in the federal regulatory process (HR 277, HR 288) and the Biden administration's ability to restrict gas stoves in particular (HR 1615, HR 1640). The rule was defeated on a 206-220 vote, as 11 GOP defectors joined all Democrats in opposition. [...] The dissenting Republicans said the vote was intended to signal their frustration with GOP leadership for cutting a deal last week on the debt limit they opposed. They also said leaders backtracked on a pledge to schedule a floor vote on gun rights legislation (H J Res 44)." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
The Defeat Of The House Rule Was The First Defeat Since 2002. According to Roll Call, "It was the first defeat of a House rule on the floor since 2002, according to C-SPAN's Howard Mortman. At that time, anti-abortion Republicans rebelled against bankruptcy overhaul legislation over language Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., helped author that would bar protesters at abortion clinics from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines and judgments." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Regulations From The Executive In Need Of Scrutiny (REINS) Act Of 2023. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (HR 277)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 215 to 203. [House Vote 247, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Require Analyses Of Federal Agency Rules To Include Expected Indirect Costs To Small Entities. In December 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would modify the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require each initial regulatory flexibility analysis for federal agency rules to contain any foreseeable potential indirect costs a proposed rule may impose on small entities, when feasible. It would require an agency, within 10 days of certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, to provide the certification to the Small Business Administration's chief counsel for advocacy. It would allow any small entity, group of small entities or organization representing such entities to petition the chief counsel to review a certification that a rule will not have significant economic impact. It also would allow petitioners to request a consultation with the chief counsel before or after filing the petition. Under the bill, a rule would cease to be effective if an agency does not complete a mandatory rule review within a 10-year period or does not attend the chief counsel's meeting to review their certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that rule should be reinstated, it would have 180 days to complete a review. The bill would require the chief counsel's full review to be published in the Federal Register and on the SBA's Office of Advocacy website, within 30 days of beginning the review." The House passed the bill by a vote of 208 to 196. [House Vote 489, 12/5/24; Congressional Quarterly, 12/5/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7198]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Use Of Funds In The Homeland Security Appropriations To Implement Rules Or Regulations With An Economic Impact Of More Than $100 Million. In June 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 9 that would prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill to finalization of any rule or regulation that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 210 to 204. [House Vote 301, 6/27/24; Congressional Quarterly, 6/27/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.1037; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8771]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Update Agency Rulemaking Guidelines. In May 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended, that would as amended, that would require the Office of Management and Budget, within one year of the bill's enactment, to update guidelines to help federal agencies ensure and maximize the quality, utility, and integrity of the 'influential information or evidence' they use to develop or issue rules and guidance. It would define 'influential information or evidence' as information or evidence that a federal agency head can reasonably determine will have or does have a clear or substantial impact on developing or issuing a proposed or final rule. It would require each agency to also make available, for any of its rules and before the rule's promulgation, the methods or evidence the agency relied on in developing or issuing the rule. It would also exempt information that is prohibited from being disclosed to the public from this requirement." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 377 to 4. [House Vote 177, 5/6/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/6/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7219]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Broaden The Definition Of A "Major Rule" To Include Any Rule That Would Rest In An Increase Of Mandatory Vaccinations. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "expand the bill's definition of a 'major rule' to include any rule likely to result in an increase in mandatory vaccinations." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 219 to 217. [House Vote 263, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 204]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Broadened The Definition Of "Major Rule" To Include Rules That Refer To President Biden's Executive Orders Regarding Diversity, Equity And Inclusion. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "expand the bill's definition of a 'major rule' to include any rule that references one of President Joe Biden's six executive orders related to diversity, equity and inclusion (nos. 14091, 14075, 14035, 14021, 13988 and 13985)." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 217 to 219. [House Vote 262, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 203]
2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Changed The Definition Of A "Major Rule" To Be Any Rule That Would Have An Economic Impact Of $1 Billion, Instead Of $100 Million. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "change the bill's definition of a 'major rule' as determined by its annual effect on the economy, increasing the threshold from $100 million to $1 billion." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 151 to 285. [House Vote 261, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 201]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Included Any Rule That Would Increase Abortion Access Or Abortion-Related Travel To The Definition Of A "Major Rule." In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "expand the bill's definition of a 'major rule' to include any rule likely to increase access to abortion services or abortion-related travel." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 211 to 223. [House Vote 258, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 198]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Included Any Rule With An Annual Economic Impact Of $50 Million, Instead Of $100 Million, To The Definition Of A "Major Rule." In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, which would "amend the bill's definition of a 'major rule' to include any rule with an annual economic effect of $50 million, rather than $100 million." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 211 to 223. [House Vote 257, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 277; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 193]