2014: Schweikert Voted To Modify The Federal Rule Process By Requiring The Consideration Of Alternatives And The Filing Of Monthly Reports Detailing On Rule-Making Activities. In September 2014, Schweikert voted to for a bill that included, according to Congressional Quarterly, "the provisions of HR 2804, which makes numerous changes to the federal rule-making process, including by requiring agencies to consider new criteria when issuing rules, such as alternatives to rules proposals and their potential costs and benefits; by requiring agencies to review the 'indirect' costs of proposed and existing rules; by requiring federal agencies to file monthly reports on the status of their rule-making activities, which must be posted online; and by modifying the process used to develop consent decrees and settlement agreements to give affected third parties an opportunity to intervene in the process." Also according to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, say the measure could undermine dozens of critical environmental, health and safety laws by impeding the ability of federal agencies to implement regulations under those laws and to protect consumers, workers and the environment." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
Bill Would Increase Rule Making Time By Four Years Above The Eight Year Current Timeframe According To Opponents; Could Significantly Impact Medicare And Would Prevent Or Delay The Government From Doing Routing Or Important Actions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Replacing existing regulatory procedures with ones intended to benefit business and industry will prevent or delay the government from undertaking both routine and important actions, [opponents] say, extending the federal rule-making process by more than four years. Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete; extending the rule-making process only increases regulatory uncertainty. And it could have a significant effect on Medicare, they argue, by designating typically routine rule changes as 'major' rules and creating additional hurdles. They also say bill provisions addressing consent decrees would severely limit individuals' rights to seek redress for an agency's failure to carry out laws designed to protect people from predatory banks and hazardous pollution." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Bill Also Included Language Requiring Agencies Approving Rules That Would Have A Negative Impact On Jobs And Wages Submit An Acknowledging Statement. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill passed the House by a 236-179 vote on Feb. 27, 2014, after being amended to require agencies approving rules that would likely have a negative impact on jobs and wages to submit a statement acknowledging the potential impact. See House Action Reports Legislative Week of Feb. 24, 2014, for a more detailed description of the bill as it was previously considered by the House." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14]
Supporters Claim That Bill Is Needed To "Rein In An Overzealous Administration That Has Been Issuing A Record Number Of Regulations That Are Harming The Economy." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that it is needed to rein in an overzealous administration that has been issuing a record number of regulations that are harming the economy. It includes four key bills that will help businesses preserve and create jobs, they say, including one that increases transparency in the regulatory process, offers entities that would be affected by proposed rules the opportunity to weigh in on development of the rule, and requires agencies to write regulations so as to impose the least cost necessary. It requires agencies to identify and reduce the cost of new regulations on small businesses and requires federal agencies to publish more timely information on the status and cost of planned new regulations, which they say will prevent regulators from 'hiding the ball' and will help the public to plan better for new requirements. They contend that it also would prevent one of the most abusive practices, whereby liberal groups sue federal agencies and the agencies 'settle' by agreeing to impose new costly regulations on business." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
League Of Conservation Voters: Language "Would Undermine Our Nation's Ability To Set Health, Safety, And Environmental Standards." According to the League of Conservation Voters, "the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT) Act of 2014, [...] would undermine our nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental standards. Specifically, H.R. 2804 would add a six-month delay to most rules essential to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the American public, and it would force agencies to engage in a 'race to the bottom' to pick the rule that is least costly to industry rather than the rule that will best protect public health. H.R. 2804 mandates wasteful new analyses that hold up life-saving agency actions and weakens the ability of citizens to prod agencies to follow the law." [League of Conservation Voters, Accessed 9/16/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Modifying The Federal Rule Process By Requiring The Consideration Of Alternatives And The Filing Of Monthly Reports Detailing On Rule-Making Activities. In February 2014, Schweikert voted for the ALERT Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "ma[d]e a number of changes to the federal rule-making process. It would [have] require[d] agencies, when issuing rules, to consider alternatives to rules and potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule and alternatives and to review indirect costs of existing and proposed rules. It also would [have] allow[ed] the Small Business Administration to intervene in an agency's rule-making process and would expand the ability of small business to challenge rules in court. It also would [have] require[d] federal agencies to file monthly reports on the status of their rule-making activities and post them online." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 236 to 179. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 78, 2/27/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2804]
Bill Would Increase Rule Making Time By Four Years Above The Eight Year Current Timeframe According To Opponents; Could Significantly Impact Medicare And Would Prevent Or Delay The Government From Doing Routing Or Important Actions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Replacing existing regulatory procedures with ones intended to benefit business and industry will prevent or delay the government from undertaking both routine and important actions, [opponents] say, extending the federal rule-making process by more than four years. Under current law, the process already takes as long as eight years to complete; extending the rule-making process only increases regulatory uncertainty. And it could have a significant effect on Medicare, they argue, by designating typically routine rule changes as 'major' rules and creating additional hurdles. They also say bill provisions addressing consent decrees would severely limit individuals' rights to seek redress for an agency's failure to carry out laws designed to protect people from predatory banks and hazardous pollution." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Bill Also Included Language Requiring Agencies Approving Rules That Would Have A Negative Impact On Jobs And Wages Submit An Acknowledging Statement. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill passed the House by a 236-179 vote on Feb. 27, 2014, after being amended to require agencies approving rules that would likely have a negative impact on jobs and wages to submit a statement acknowledging the potential impact. See House Action Reports Legislative Week of Feb. 24, 2014, for a more detailed description of the bill as it was previously considered by the House." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14]
Supporters Claim That Bill Is Needed To "Rein In An Overzealous Administration That Has Been Issuing A Record Number Of Regulations That Are Harming The Economy." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that it is needed to rein in an overzealous administration that has been issuing a record number of regulations that are harming the economy. It includes four key bills that will help businesses preserve and create jobs, they say, including one that increases transparency in the regulatory process, offers entities that would be affected by proposed rules the opportunity to weigh in on development of the rule, and requires agencies to write regulations so as to impose the least cost necessary. It requires agencies to identify and reduce the cost of new regulations on small businesses and requires federal agencies to publish more timely information on the status and cost of planned new regulations, which they say will prevent regulators from 'hiding the ball' and will help the public to plan better for new requirements. They contend that it also would prevent one of the most abusive practices, whereby liberal groups sue federal agencies and the agencies 'settle' by agreeing to impose new costly regulations on business." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
League Of Conservation Voters: Language "Would Undermine Our Nation's Ability To Set Health, Safety, And Environmental Standards." According to the League of Conservation Voters, "the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT) Act of 2014, [...] would undermine our nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental standards. Specifically, H.R. 2804 would add a six-month delay to most rules essential to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the American public, and it would force agencies to engage in a 'race to the bottom' to pick the rule that is least costly to industry rather than the rule that will best protect public health. H.R. 2804 mandates wasteful new analyses that hold up life-saving agency actions and weakens the ability of citizens to prod agencies to follow the law." [League of Conservation Voters, Accessed 9/16/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Allow Congress To Disapprove Regulations Made In A Presidents Final Year Via The Congressional Review Act En Bloc. In November 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "permit[ed] a new Congress to use the procedures under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove en bloc multiple regulations issued during the final year of a president's term." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 184. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 8, 1/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/4/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5982]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Allow Congress To Disapprove Regulations Made In A Presidents Final Year Via The Congressional Review Act En Bloc. In November 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "permit[ed] a new Congress to use the procedures under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove en bloc multiple regulations issued during the final year of a president's term." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 240 to 179, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 585, 11/17/16; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5982]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Expanding And Revising The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In September 2014, Schweikert voted for expanding and revising the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that would stymie the regulatory process and give corporations an advantage over individuals in the rulemaking process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill expands and modifies the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; PL 104-4), including by requiring that independent agencies conduct analyses of their proposed rules on the private sector and state and local governments, and by requiring all federal agencies to consult with the private sector when developing rules." Congressional Quarterly also noted, "Opponents, primarily Democrats, say it represents an assault on federal health, safety and environmental protections. They contend that the measure would stymie the regulatory process, give corporations an unfair advantage over individuals in the development of regulations and divert scarce resources from other critical agency missions." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Requires The Congressional Budget Office And Most Federal Agencies To Estimate The Costs Of Mandates In Proposed Regulations And Includes Legislative Procedures Via A Point Of Order To Block Measures Containing Unfunded Mandates. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; PL 104-4) was enacted in 1995 to improve congressional and federal agency deliberations over laws and regulations that could be considered unfunded mandates on either the private sector or on state and local governments. UMRA requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate the costs of mandates in proposed legislation and most federal agencies to estimate the costs of mandates in proposed regulations. The law also provides legislative procedures to block measures containing certain unfunded mandates through a point of order on the House and Senate floors." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Supporters Of The Provision Claim That As Currently Applied, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Is Inadequate, Focused Too Narrowly And Contains Loopholes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that UMRA is inadequate because it is narrowly focused and rife with loopholes. In recent years, they say, the Government Accountability Office has found that more than half of the rules it reviewed resulted in new costs or other negative financial impacts on non-federal entities but did not trigger a review under UMRA. They say the bill would provide Congress and the public with more complete information about the effects of federal mandates, enhance the ability of Congress and the public to identify harmful mandates, and ensure that Congress acts on legislation with mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Opponents Note That These Reforms Would Give The Private Sector Advance Notice To Provide Input. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, primarily Democrats, say it represents an assault on federal health, safety and environmental protections. [...] Particularly egregious, they say, are provisions that give private sector stakeholders an advance opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations, as well as those that could prompt a deluge of legal actions against agencies in the courts. They also express concern over whether the bill's requirements could compromise the independence of certain regulatory agencies." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Requires That When Conducting Unfunded Mandate Analysis, All Agencies Must Consult With The Private Sector And Detail This In Annual Reports Given To Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "All agencies conducting unfunded mandate reviews [...] would be required to consult with the private sector on the potential impact of regulations being developed. Currently, agencies are only required to receive input from state, local and tribal governments on the potential intergovernmental impact of proposed rules. The measure includes guidelines, based on current executive branch policies, on how agencies should carry out this new consultation requirement, and it requires agencies to include in their annual reports to Congress an appendix detailing their UMRA consultation activities with state, local and tribal governments and the private sector." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Requires That All Independent Agencies Conduct Unfunded Mandate Analysis. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that independent federal regulatory agencies, except for the Federal Reserve, conduct unfunded mandate analyses of their proposed rules. Currently, independent agencies are exempt from the law's review requirement, but the Oversight Committee notes that rules developed by agencies such as the SEC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission can have significant effects on the private sector and state and local governments." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Would Force Agencies To Conduct A Rule's Annual Economic Effect And Indirect Impacts In Addition To Expenditure Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure codifies numerous practices with regard to agency unfunded mandate analyses that agencies currently must follow pursuant to numerous presidential executive orders and administration directives --- including the requirement that agencies measure a proposed rule's annual economic effect, not just the expenditure effect. Specifically, it requires that agencies assess the indirect costs of regulatory mandates such as forgone profits, costs passed on to consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Creates A Congressional Point Of Order That Includes A Private Sector Mandate Exceeding The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act Threshold ($152 Million In 2014). According to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill amends the Congressional Budget Act to create a new point of order that lawmakers may raise against legislation that includes a private sector mandate that exceeds the UMRA threshold for the costs of such mandates in any one year, as estimated by CBO ($152 million for 2014, after being adjusted for inflation). Currently, lawmakers may raise a point of order only against legislation that includes an intergovernmental mandate that exceeds its UMRA threshold (now $76 million for 2014, after being adjusted for inflation)." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Allows Committee Chairman Or Ranking Member To Request A Congressional Budget Office Assessment Of The Costs On State Or Local Governments As A Condition Of Receiving Federal Grants Or Other Assistance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It allows a committee chairman or ranking member to request that CBO conduct an assessment of the costs that would be imposed on state or local governments as a condition of receiving federal grants or other assistance authorized under proposed legislation. Current law allows committee leaders to request CBO assessments of the costs of federal mandates, but the assessments do not apply to changing conditions for receiving federal assistance." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Allows Committee Chairman Or Ranking Member To Require Federal Agencies To Conduct Retrospective Analysis Of Existing Regulations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure requires federal agencies, if requested by a committee chairman or ranking member, to conduct retrospective unfunded mandate analyses of existing regulations. Such agency analyses must: Specify the continued need for the federal regulation, the nature and comments or complaints received concerning the rule; Provide an explanation of the extent to which the mandate may duplicate other regulations; Include a description of the degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in the area affecting the regulation; Provide an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the regulation that considers studies done outside the government; and Include a history of legal challenges to the regulation." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Extends Judicial Review To The Selection Of The Least Costly Or Burdensome Alternative. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill extends judicial review to the selection of the least costly or the least burdensome alternative to a regulatory mandate. It also permits a court to stay, enjoin or invalidate a rule if an agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis, or to adhere to the regulatory principles." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Expanding And Revising The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In February 2014, Schweikert voted for expanding and revising the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that would stymie the regulatory process and give corporations an advantage over individuals in the rulemaking process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill expands and modifies the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; PL 104-4), including by requiring that independent agencies conduct analyses of their proposed rules on the private sector and state and local governments, and by requiring all federal agencies to consult with the private sector when developing rules." Congressional Quarterly also noted, "Opponents, primarily Democrats, say it represents an assault on federal health, safety and environmental protections. They contend that the measure would stymie the regulatory process, give corporations an unfair advantage over individuals in the development of regulations and divert scarce resources from other critical agency missions." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 90, 2/28/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 899]
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Requires The Congressional Budget Office And Most Federal Agencies To Estimate The Costs Of Mandates In Proposed Regulations And Includes Legislative Procedures Via A Point Of Order To Block Measures Containing Unfunded Mandates. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; PL 104-4) was enacted in 1995 to improve congressional and federal agency deliberations over laws and regulations that could be considered unfunded mandates on either the private sector or on state and local governments. UMRA requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate the costs of mandates in proposed legislation and most federal agencies to estimate the costs of mandates in proposed regulations. The law also provides legislative procedures to block measures containing certain unfunded mandates through a point of order on the House and Senate floors." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Supporters Of The Provision Claim That As Currently Applied, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Is Inadequate, Focused Too Narrowly And Contains Loopholes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that UMRA is inadequate because it is narrowly focused and rife with loopholes. In recent years, they say, the Government Accountability Office has found that more than half of the rules it reviewed resulted in new costs or other negative financial impacts on non-federal entities but did not trigger a review under UMRA. They say the bill would provide Congress and the public with more complete information about the effects of federal mandates, enhance the ability of Congress and the public to identify harmful mandates, and ensure that Congress acts on legislation with mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Opponents Note That These Reforms Would Give The Private Sector Advance Notice To Provide Input. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, primarily Democrats, say it represents an assault on federal health, safety and environmental protections. [...] Particularly egregious, they say, are provisions that give private sector stakeholders an advance opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations, as well as those that could prompt a deluge of legal actions against agencies in the courts. They also express concern over whether the bill's requirements could compromise the independence of certain regulatory agencies." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Requires That When Conducting Unfunded Mandate Analysis, All Agencies Must Consult With The Private Sector And Detail This In Annual Reports Given To Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "All agencies conducting unfunded mandate reviews [...] would be required to consult with the private sector on the potential impact of regulations being developed. Currently, agencies are only required to receive input from state, local and tribal governments on the potential intergovernmental impact of proposed rules. The measure includes guidelines, based on current executive branch policies, on how agencies should carry out this new consultation requirement, and it requires agencies to include in their annual reports to Congress an appendix detailing their UMRA consultation activities with state, local and tribal governments and the private sector." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Requires That All Independent Agencies Conduct Unfunded Mandate Analysis. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that independent federal regulatory agencies, except for the Federal Reserve, conduct unfunded mandate analyses of their proposed rules. Currently, independent agencies are exempt from the law's review requirement, but the Oversight Committee notes that rules developed by agencies such as the SEC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission can have significant effects on the private sector and state and local governments." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Would Force Agencies To Conduct A Rule's Annual Economic Effect And Indirect Impacts In Addition To Expenditure Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure codifies numerous practices with regard to agency unfunded mandate analyses that agencies currently must follow pursuant to numerous presidential executive orders and administration directives --- including the requirement that agencies measure a proposed rule's annual economic effect, not just the expenditure effect. Specifically, it requires that agencies assess the indirect costs of regulatory mandates such as forgone profits, costs passed on to consumers and other entities, and behavioral changes." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Creates A Congressional Point Of Order That Includes A Private Sector Mandate Exceeding The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act Threshold ($152 Million In 2014). According to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill amends the Congressional Budget Act to create a new point of order that lawmakers may raise against legislation that includes a private sector mandate that exceeds the UMRA threshold for the costs of such mandates in any one year, as estimated by CBO ($152 million for 2014, after being adjusted for inflation). Currently, lawmakers may raise a point of order only against legislation that includes an intergovernmental mandate that exceeds its UMRA threshold (now $76 million for 2014, after being adjusted for inflation)." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Allows Committee Chairman Or Ranking Member To Request A Congressional Budget Office Assessment Of The Costs On State Or Local Governments As A Condition Of Receiving Federal Grants Or Other Assistance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It allows a committee chairman or ranking member to request that CBO conduct an assessment of the costs that would be imposed on state or local governments as a condition of receiving federal grants or other assistance authorized under proposed legislation. Current law allows committee leaders to request CBO assessments of the costs of federal mandates, but the assessments do not apply to changing conditions for receiving federal assistance." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Allows Committee Chairman Or Ranking Member To Require Federal Agencies To Conduct Retrospective Analysis Of Existing Regulations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure requires federal agencies, if requested by a committee chairman or ranking member, to conduct retrospective unfunded mandate analyses of existing regulations. Such agency analyses must: Specify the continued need for the federal regulation, the nature and comments or complaints received concerning the rule; Provide an explanation of the extent to which the mandate may duplicate other regulations; Include a description of the degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in the area affecting the regulation; Provide an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the regulation that considers studies done outside the government; and Include a history of legal challenges to the regulation." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
Provision Extends Judicial Review To The Selection Of The Least Costly Or Burdensome Alternative. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill extends judicial review to the selection of the least costly or the least burdensome alternative to a regulatory mandate. It also permits a court to stay, enjoin or invalidate a rule if an agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis, or to adhere to the regulatory principles." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14]
2015: Schweikert Voted For The Unfunded Mandates Information And Transparency Act, A Bill That Would Force Independent Agencies To Consult With The Private Sector And State And Local Governments When Developing Rules. In February 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would force independent agencies to consult with the private sector and state and local governments when developing rules. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill expands and modifies the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [...] including by requiring that independent agencies conduct analyses of their proposed rules on the private sector and state and local governments, and by requiring all federal agencies to consult with the private sector when developing rules. It also requires that all agencies, when reviewing proposed regulations for unfunded mandates, incorporate into their reviews the indirect costs of proposed rules; it creates a congressional point of order against legislation that includes private sector mandates; and it requires agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing federal rules if requested by congressional leaders." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 250 to 173. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 64, 2/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/1/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 50]
Bill Opponents Claim That Bill Represents An Assault On Federal Health, Safety And Environmental Protections And Could Compromise Independence Of Certain Regulatory Agencies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, say it represents an assault on federal health, safety and environmental protections. Particularly egregious, they say, are provisions that give private sector stakeholders an advance opportunity to provide input on proposed regulations, as well as those that could prompt a deluge of legal actions against agencies in the courts. Democrats say businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules but they should do it through the normal public comment process, like other stakeholders. They also express concern over whether the bill's requirements could compromise the independence of certain regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15]
Center For Effective Government: Bill "Would Make It Even More Difficult For Agencies To Implement Laws Enacted By Congress." According to the Center for Effective Government via The Hill, "It doesn't improve or streamline the regulatory process, which is already plagued by hurdles and delays. This act would make it even more difficult for agencies to implement laws enacted by Congress.'" [The Hill, 1/30/15]
Bill Proponents Claim That The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Is Inadequate Due Narrow Focus And Loopholes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that UMRA is inadequate because it is narrowly focused and rife with loopholes, such as exemptions for independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Board and the National Labor Relations Board. UMRA, they say, also allows agencies to forgo analyses if they never issue a rule-making notice and does not address mandates imposed as a result of changes to conditions for receiving federal grants. They say the bill would provide Congress and the public with more complete information about the effects of federal mandates, enhance the ability of Congress and the public to identify harmful mandates and ensure that Congress acts on legislation with mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Supreme Court Precedent That Deferred To Agency Interpretation Of The Underlying Law As Part Of Legislation That Made Significant Changes To Federal Rule-Making. In January 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that altered the procedure for federal rule-making. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would modify the federal rule-making process, including by codifying requirements for agencies to consider costs and benefits of alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that agencies would need to follow when planning 'major' rules with annual costs of more than $100 million or 'high-impact' rules with annual costs of more than $1 billion. For example, agencies would need to hold an advanced-notice comment period prior to proposing such rules to determine whether to continue the rule-making process. The measure would postpone the effective dates of 'high impact' rules until any lawsuits filed within 60 days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register are resolved. It would effectively overturn two Supreme Court decisions that require federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of the underlying law or rule when considering legal challenges to rules. It would also require agencies to evaluate the 'indirect' impacts of proposed rules on small businesses." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 183. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 45, 1/11/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Postpone Enactment Of Regulations With At Least $1 Billion Of Impact Until All Legal Challenges Filed Within 60 Days Of Publication Are Resolved As Part Of Legislation That Made Significant Changes To Federal Rule-Making. In January 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that altered the procedure for federal rule-making. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would modify the federal rule-making process, including by codifying requirements for agencies to consider costs and benefits of alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that agencies would need to follow when planning 'major' rules with annual costs of more than $100 million or 'high-impact' rules with annual costs of more than $1 billion. For example, agencies would need to hold an advanced-notice comment period prior to proposing such rules to determine whether to continue the rule-making process. The measure would postpone the effective dates of 'high impact' rules until any lawsuits filed within 60 days of the rule's publication in the Federal Register are resolved. It would effectively overturn two Supreme Court decisions that require federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of the underlying law or rule when considering legal challenges to rules. It would also require agencies to evaluate the 'indirect' impacts of proposed rules on small businesses." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 183. It is awaiting action in the Senate. [House Vote 45, 1/11/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Creating A "Regulatory Budget." In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Agencies From Publically Supporting Or Opposing Pending Regulations. In March 2017, Schweikert voted for the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "require[d] federal agencies to maintain and regularly update detailed online databases of regulatory actions taken and pending before the agency. Under the measure, an agency would [have] be[en] required to list whether it is considering alternatives and whether it is accepting comments. It would [have] explicitly prohibit[ed] agencies from directly advocating support or opposition for pending regulatory actions in public communications. As amended, the measure would [have] require[d] an agency to list regulatory actions issued by the agency, or any other agency, that would duplicate or overlap with the agency's pending regulatory action." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 246 to 176. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 126, 3/2/17; Congressional Quarterly, 3/2/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1004]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Create A Commission Tasked With Identifying And Eliminating Government Regulations And Voted To Establish A System Known As 'Cut-Go' Which Would Require Agencies To Repeal Regulations To "Offset" New Rules. In March 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation known as the SCRIB Act. The legislation would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed] a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy. The commission would identify those regulatory policies that should be repealed immediately, and would set up a 'Cut-Go' system that would require agencies to repeal existing rules to offset costs before issuing a new rule. The measure, as amended, would require the commission to review a rule or regulation's unfunded mandate, whether the rule or regulation limits or prevents government agencies from adopting technology to improve efficiency, and the rule or regulation's impact on wage growth, when determining if the rule or regulation should be repealed." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 240 to 185. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 114, 3/1/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 998]
The Nine Member Commission Would Be Tasked With Locating Regulations To Be Repealed Because Their Repeal Would Benefit The Economy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would establish a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/16]
Commissioners Would Be Appointed By The President And Confirmed By The Senate; Eight Of Its Members Must Be From A List Given To The President By Congressional Leadership From Both Sides Of The Aisle. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The commission is to be composed of nine members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under the measure, eight of those appointments must be from lists of possible nominees submitted by the speaker and minority leader of the House and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate (two from each list). The president would select and appoint the commission's chair, with this individual to be chosen from among past administrators of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Administrative Conference of the United States or other individuals who have similar experience and expertise in rule-making and regulatory reviews. All appointments must be submitted to the Senate for confirmation within 180 days of enactment, and the commission could not hold any votes until all nine members of the commission are confirmed." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/31/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Bill Does Not Address An Existing Problem And Its 'Cut-Go' Procedure Would Hinder Agencies From Properly Performing Their Statutory Responsibilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, including most Democrats, argue that the bill is a solution in search of a problem since there already exists an extensive framework for agencies to modify and repeal past regulations. The bill's premise, they say, is based on the false idea that federal agency rule-making somehow undermines economic growth and job creation. [...] They say the bill's new 'cut-go' procedures are particularly egregious because they will inhibit agencies from doing their most basic functions by prohibiting a simple informal rule-making from taking place, even in the case of an emergency of threat to public health, until the agency offsets the costs of that new rule by repealing a rule identified by the commission." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/31/15]
President Trump Has Called To Reduce Regulations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Trump, meanwhile, has vowed to reduce regulations and has taken executive actions to impose a freeze on most pending regulations, as well as to require agencies to repeal two regulations for every new rule that is proposed. All agencies are required to set up a task force to identify outdated and costly rules, as well as those that hinder job creation, with those identified rules to be subject to possible repeal." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/17]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Require The Commission Created By The SCRUB Act, Which Would Require Agencies To Eliminate Old Rules In Order To Create New Ones, To Consider Any Impact Of Public Health. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the regulatory review commission, in identifying which rules should be repealed, to consider the extent to which repealing the rule would impact public health." The underlying legislation, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed] a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy. The commission would identify those regulatory policies that should be repealed immediately, and would set up a 'Cut-Go' system that would require agencies to repeal existing rules to offset costs before issuing a new rule. The measure, as amended, would require the commission to review a rule or regulation's unfunded mandate, whether the rule or regulation limits or prevents government agencies from adopting technology to improve efficiency, and the rule or regulation's impact on wage growth, when determining if the rule or regulation should be repealed." The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 348 to 75. The House later passed the SCRUB Act. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 105, 2/28/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 46; Congressional Actions, H.R. 998]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Create A Commission Tasked With Identifying And Eliminating Government Regulations And Voted To Establish A System Known As 'Cut-Go' Which Would Require Agencies To Repeal Regulations To "Offset" New Rules. In January 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish[ed] a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy. The commission would identify those regulatory policies that should be repealed immediately, and would set up a 'Cut-Go' system that would require agencies to repeal existing rules to offset costs before issuing a new rule. The measure, as amended, would require the commission to review a rule or regulation's unfunded mandate, whether the rule or regulation limits or prevents government agencies from adopting technology to improve efficiency, and the rule or regulation's impact on wage growth, when determining if the rule or regulation should be repealed." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 245 to 174. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 20, 1/7/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1155]
The Nine Member Commission Would Be Tasked With Locating Regulations To Be Repealed Because Their Repeal Would Benefit The Economy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would establish a nine-member commission to review existing federal regulations and identify regulations that should be repealed on the basis of reducing costs on the U.S. economy." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/16]
Commissioners Would Be Appointed By The President And Confirmed By The Senate; Eight Of Its Members Must Be From A List Given To The President By Congressional Leadership From Both Sides Of The Aisle. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The commission is to be composed of nine members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under the measure, eight of those appointments must be from lists of possible nominees submitted by the speaker and minority leader of the House and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate (two from each list). The president would select and appoint the commission's chair, with this individual to be chosen from among past administrators of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Administrative Conference of the United States or other individuals who have similar experience and expertise in rule-making and regulatory reviews. All appointments must be submitted to the Senate for confirmation within 180 days of enactment, and the commission could not hold any votes until all nine members of the commission are confirmed." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/31/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Bill Does Not Address An Existing Problem And Its 'Cut-Go' Procedure Would Hinder Agencies From Properly Performing Their Statutory Responsibilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, including most Democrats, argue that the bill is a solution in search of a problem since there already exists an extensive framework for agencies to modify and repeal past regulations. The bill's premise, they say, is based on the false idea that federal agency rule-making somehow undermines economic growth and job creation. [...] They say the bill's new 'cut-go' procedures are particularly egregious because they will inhibit agencies from doing their most basic functions by prohibiting a simple informal rule-making from taking place, even in the case of an emergency of threat to public health, until the agency offsets the costs of that new rule by repealing a rule identified by the commission." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/31/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Expanding The Small Business Administration's Authority To Ensure Other Agencies Comply With A 1980's Law On Regulations And The Ability Of Small Businesses To Legally Challenge Rules. In February 2015, Schweikert voted for expanding the Small Business Administration's authority to ensure other agencies comply with a 1980's law on regulations and the ability of small businesses to legally challenge rules. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have "give[n] the Small Business Administration more authority to ensure federal agencies grant small businesses flexibility in following regulations. [...] it would expand the reviews of planned regulations that federal agencies must conduct under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. Under the bill, the SBA would have new authority to ensure agencies comply with the law's regulatory review requirements, including by getting more directly involved with agency reviews of proposed rules. It would expand the ability of small businesses and other small entities affected by an agency's regulations to legally challenge those rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 260 to 163. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 68, 2/5/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/5/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 527]
The Bill Would Expand Review Of 'Indirect Costs' Of Regulations Impacting Small Businesses. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also would expand the review that federal agencies must conduct of regulations affecting small businesses to also evaluate the 'indirect' costs of such rules." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/5/15]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 "Requires Federal Agencies To Review All Planned Regulations To Ensure That They Do Not Place A Disproportionate Economic Burden On Small Entities." According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 [...] requires federal agencies to review all planned regulations to ensure that they do not place a disproportionate economic burden on small entities. Under the RFA, federal agencies must analyze the impact of their regulatory actions on small entities and propose less burdensome alternatives if the impact of a planned rule is likely to be significant and affect a substantial number of small entities. RFA requires all newly issued rules to be reviewed within 10 years and revised if found to be duplicative, excessively burdensome or no longer necessary (existing rules had to be reviewed within 10 years of enactment). [...] Congress in 1996 [...] added several features to the RFA --- including by requiring agencies to develop and publish compliance guides for rules that explain the steps a small entity must take to comply with new regulations, and by creating a complaint process whereby small businesses can seek review of an RFA regulation in court." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: "Bill Would Unnecessary New Procedures On Agencies And Invite Frivolous Litigation." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "The bill would impose unnecessary new procedures on agencies and invite frivolous litigation. When a Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency must adhere to the robust and well understood procedural requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act and other Federal statutes such as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. [...] If the President were presented with H.R. 527, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 2/3/15]
Bill Supporters Claim That The Bill Would Decrease Regulations That "Stifle" Small Businesses. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill say it is needed to eliminate loopholes in RFA that allow federal agencies to avoid reviews of proposed regulations that affect small businesses. They argue that the SBA needs more power to encourage agencies to conduct such reviews and that reviews by federal agencies need to also evaluate the indirect costs of regulatory proposals since regulations often stifle small-business growth and productivity in ways not anticipated when the rules are written. Small businesses are critical to job growth in the United States, and proponents say the bill will help small businesses create jobs by getting rid of unnecessary regulatory hurdles." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Implementing The REINS Act. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Require Congressional Approval For Executive Agencies' "Major Rules" Before Their Implementation. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that required Congressional approval of executive agencies' proposals categorized as "major rules." According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have required "Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval." The vote was on passage of the legislation. The House approved the legislation 243 to 165. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 23, 1/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 12/30/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]
"Major Rules" Were Defined By The Legislation As "Regulations With An Annual Economic Impact Of More Than $100 Million." According to the Congressional Quarterly, "The measure defines the term 'major rule' as any rule that would have an annual economic effect greater than $100 million; would cause a major increase in costs or prices; or would have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or U.S. economic competitiveness." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/30/16]
The Federal Government Issues 3,000 To 4,000 Rules A Year; About 82 Rules Annually Over The Past Five Years That Would Be Considered Major Rules Under The REINS Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, " Federal agencies issue 3,000 to 4,000 final rules each year. Most of these are developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Transportation, Homeland Security and Commerce departments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, on average, 82 proposed major rules, as defined by the bill, have been issued per year for the past six years." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/30/16]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill On Identical Legislation From 2015: The Legislation Amended The Congressional Review Act (1996) Which Has Been Largely Ineffective At Controlling Regulations From The Executive Branch. According to the Hill, "The Judiciary Committee's report on the bill explains that back in 1996, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was implemented as an attempt to get control over the large number of regulations coming from the federal government. But only one regulation has been undone using CRA, while 60,000 regulations have come into being. Major regulations accounted for 1,000 of them." [The Hill, 7/28/15]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill On Identical Legislation From 2015: The REINS Act Made The Executive Branch More Accountable To The Legislative Branch And Saved Money. According to Neil Siefring via The Hill, "Last week, the House passed legislation that could change the way Washington works for the better. It will help give Congress more oversight on spending, will make the executive branch more accountable to the legislative branch, and could save a great deal of money." [The Hill, 8/4/15]
Obama Administration On Identical 2015 Bill: Legislation Was Unnecessary. According to the Hill, "The controversial regulatory reform bill, which the House will vote on later this week, would give Congress the final say over all major regulations. 'This radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches would delay, and in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and executive of duly-enacted laws,' the White House wrote. [...] The White House said the REINS Act is unnecessary. 'This administration has already taken numerous steps to reduce regulatory costs and to ensure that all major regulations are designed to maximize net benefits to society,' the White House wrote." [Hill, 7/27/15]
AFL-CIO On Identical 2015 Bill: REINS Act Would Threaten The Safety Of Workers And The Public. According to a letter from the Director of Government Affairs of the AFL-CIO to the House of Representatives, "This is an extreme measure that would make it virtually impossible for agencies to issue any meaningful rules, threatening the health and safety of workers and the public. I urge you to vote against this legislation. [...] The REINS Act would cripple a regulatory process that already causes excessive delays in the issuance of crucial worker and public protections. For example, despite having unanimous support from industry and labor, the 2010 Occupational Safety and Health Administration's construction safety standard on cranes and derricks took ten years to finalize. Under REINS, Congressional inaction could simply kill such commonsense rules. [... The REINS Act represents a grave threat to our government's ability to protect workers and the public from harm." [AFL-CIO, 7/27/15]
League Of Conservation Voters On Identical 2015 Bill: The REINS Act Would Lead To More Premature Deaths, Illnesses, And Negative Health Impacts Due To Polluters. According to the League of Conservation Voters, "The REINS Act would delay or shut down the implementation of vital public health and environmental safeguards, which would mean more premature deaths, illnesses, and other health impacts on the American people at the hands of polluters dumping toxins into our air and water. The bill requires both houses of Congress to affirmatively approve all significant new public protections before they take effect. This is nothing more than a tool for polluters to scuttle new health and environmental safeguards." [League of Conservation Votes, 7/28/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 115th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Require Congressional Approval For Executive Agencies' "Major Rules" Before Their Implementation. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that required Congressional approval of executive agencies' proposals categorized as "major rules." According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have required "Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval." The vote was on passage of the legislation. The House approved the legislation 243 to 165. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 482, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427]
"Major Rules" Were Defined By The Legislation As "Regulations With An Annual Economic Impact Of More Than $100 Million." According to the Congressional Quarterly, "The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
The Federal Government Issues 3,000 To 4,000 Rules A Year; About 82 Rules Annually Over The Past Five Years That Would Be Considered Major Rules Under The REINS Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The federal government issues 3,000 to 4,000 final rules each year, mostly by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation, Homeland Security and Commerce departments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, on average, 82 proposed major rules, have been issued per year for the past five years that would be considered major rules under the legislation." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill: The Legislation Amended The Congressional Review Act (1996) Which Has Been Largely Ineffective At Controlling Regulations From The Executive Branch. According to the Hill, "The Judiciary Committee's report on the bill explains that back in 1996, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was implemented as an attempt to get control over the large number of regulations coming from the federal government. But only one regulation has been undone using CRA, while 60,000 regulations have come into being. Major regulations accounted for 1,000 of them." [The Hill, 7/28/15]
Neil Siefring Via The Hill: The REINS Act Made The Executive Branch More Accountable To The Legislative Branch And Saved Money. According to Neil Siefring via The Hill, "Last week, the House passed legislation that could change the way Washington works for the better. It will help give Congress more oversight on spending, will make the executive branch more accountable to the legislative branch, and could save a great deal of money." [The Hill, 8/4/15]
The White House: Legislation Was Unnecessary; Threatened A Veto. According to the Hill, "The controversial regulatory reform bill, which the House will vote on later this week, would give Congress the final say over all major regulations. 'This radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches would delay, and in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and executive of duly-enacted laws,' the White House wrote. [...] The White House said the REINS Act is unnecessary. 'This administration has already taken numerous steps to reduce regulatory costs and to ensure that all major regulations are designed to maximize net benefits to society,' the White House wrote." [Hill, 7/27/15]
AFL-CIO: The REINS Act Would Threaten The Safety Of Workers And The Public. According to a letter from the Director of Government Affairs of the AFL-CIO to the House of Representatives, "This is an extreme measure that would make it virtually impossible for agencies to issue any meaningful rules, threatening the health and safety of workers and the public. I urge you to vote against this legislation. [...] The REINS Act would cripple a regulatory process that already causes excessive delays in the issuance of crucial worker and public protections. For example, despite having unanimous support from industry and labor, the 2010 Occupational Safety and Health Administration's construction safety standard on cranes and derricks took ten years to finalize. Under REINS, Congressional inaction could simply kill such commonsense rules. [... The REINS Act represents a grave threat to our government's ability to protect workers and the public from harm." [AFL-CIO, 7/27/15]
Natural Resources Defense Council: "REINS Act Would Increase Toxic Pollution." According to Sustainable Business, John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote, "Toxic air pollution standards that EPA spent more than two years developing, informed by thousands of public comments and the expertise of agency scientists, engineers, analysts, attorneys and economists. Standards that would reduce mercury emissions and deadly particulate matter by 92%. Safeguards that would avoid up to 2,500 premature deaths; 1,500 heart attacks; 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 32,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms; and 130,000 days when people would have missed miss work. Now Tea Party activists, some corporate lobbyists and congressional conservatives want to make this cringe worthy example of legislative irresponsibility the norm for voiding health, safety and environmental protections issued by federal agencies. These groups are supporting legislation called the REINS Act, Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, that would become an enabling weapon for big corporations and members of Congress seeking to kill health, safety and environmental protections with the same reckless disregard accorded EPA's mercury pollution standards." [Sustainable Business, 3/4/11]
League Of Conservation Voters: The REINS Act Would Lead To More Premature Deaths, Illnesses, And Negative Health Impacts Due To Polluters. According to the League of Conservation Voters, "The REINS Act would delay or shut down the implementation of vital public health and environmental safeguards, which would mean more premature deaths, illnesses, and other health impacts on the American people at the hands of polluters dumping toxins into our air and water. The bill requires both houses of Congress to affirmatively approve all significant new public protections before they take effect. This is nothing more than a tool for polluters to scuttle new health and environmental safeguards." [League of Conservation Votes, 7/28/15]
American Constitution Society: The REINS Act Would Have Reduced Environmental Safety Protections. According to the American Constitution Society, "But we cannot lose sight of the fact that many of the advances in environmental protection, health, and safety that we enjoy today would not have occurred without regulations-and when those health and safety standards were imposed, the industries involved objected based on the many of the same economic arguments we hear today. [...] Pursuit of those principles, even if they prove challenging at times, should be the focus of our leaders in Washington, not misleading legislative efforts like the REINS Act, which would thwart future environmental, health, and safety gains." [American Constitution Society, 2/25/11]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Exempt Regulation Relating To Nuclear Reactor Safety From The REINS Act. In July 2005, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would exempt any rule relating to nuclear reactor safety standards from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "exempt[ed] any rule relating to nuclear reactor safety standards from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill." The underlying measure was HR 427, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act. The vote was on the Amendment. The House of Representatives rejected the amendment by a vote of 167 to 241. [House Vote 479, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Record, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 690; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): "My Amendment Would Allow The Nuclear Regulatory Commission [...] To Continue To Issue Rules Under The Current System Thereby Making It Easier To Protect Americans From Nuclear Disaster." In a speech on the floor, Rep. Nadler said, "In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from nuclear disaster. Today's bill, in the name of so-called reform, adds new procedural hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulation can be issued, including requiring a joint resolution of approval for every major rule. The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basic functions: to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, safety, and environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, oppose this bill. According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill 'is nothing more than a back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big-money interests do not want. It would force Congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money, and paralyzing vital agency work.'" [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): Underlying Bill Would Make It More Difficult To Protect The Health And Welfare Of Citizens. "Today's bill, in the name of so-called reform, adds new procedural hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulation can be issued, including requiring a joint resolution of approval for every major rule. The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basic functions: to protect the health and welfare of its citizens." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Coalition For Sensible Safeguards: This Bill "Is Nothing More Than A Back-Door Way To Gut Enforcement Of Existing Legislation And Future Safeguards That Big-Money Interests Do Not Want. It Would Force Congress To Refight Its Previous Debates, Wasting Time And Money, And Paralyzing Vital Agency Work." In a speech on the floor, Rep. Nadler said, "According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill 'is nothing more than a back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big-money interests do not want. It would force Congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money, and paralyzing vital agency work.'" [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA): "Agencies With Authority Over Nuclear Reactor Safety Will Know That Congress Must Approve Their Major Regulations Before They Go Into Effect. [...] That Provides A Powerful Incentive For The Agencies To Write The Best Possible Regulations, Ones That Congress Can Easily Approve." In a speech on the floor, Rep. Goodlatte said, "Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act congressional approval procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made, but that is precisely why I oppose the amendment. By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act congressional approval procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards, but, also, regulations that would lower them. All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS Act. That way, agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety will know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because it makes Congress more accountable and ensures agencies will write better rules. All Americans will be safer for it." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Exempt Safety Regulations For Products Meant For Use By Children Under Two Years Old From The REINS Act. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have exempted safety regulations pertaining to products for use by children under two from the REINS Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment that would exempt rules pertaining to the safety of any product designed for children under two from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill." The underlying measure was HR 427, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act. The vote was on the amendment. The House of Representatives rejected the amendment by a vote of 167 to 243. [House Vote 478, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Record, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 689; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI): "This Amendment Improves H.R. 427 By Exempting Those Regulations That Are Critical To Protecting The Health And Safety Of Infants." In a floor speech Rep. Cicilline said, "Mr. Chair, this amendment improves H.R. 427 by exempting those regulations that are critical to protecting the health and safety of infants. More specifically, the Jackson Lee amendment provides a special rule pertaining to the safety of any product specifically designed to be used or consumed by a child under the age of 2 years, which includes cribs, car seats, and infant formula. [...] For example, much like the version of the bill that we debated in previous sessions, the REINS Act would delay product safety rules affecting family products like toys, cribs, and children's clothing. In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 427 could result in further delay to agencies attempting to take action to protect children as it relates to harmful and deadly products, such as safety caps on medicine, flammable clothing, and tipping furniture, just to name a few." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) Opposed This Amendment Because Congress Should Have The Responsibility To Regulate Not Bureaucrats. In a floor speech, Rep. Goodlatte said, "Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is no way to guarantee child safety. The only thing that that would guarantee is less careful decision-making and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the public. Congress needs a better mechanism to make sure that Washington bureaucrats make the right decision to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bad amendment. [...] The elected Representatives of the people are the best ones to be held accountable for the laws and regulations passed and adopted in this country, including those that protect children. This would turn back to a situation where unelected bureaucrats can take whatever time they want to, write whatever regulation they want to, and then that would take effect without the Congress having to have the ability to say, yes, that truly will protect children or, no, that will not protect children. We should have that responsibility. That is something that the American people expect from their elected representatives. For that reason, I oppose this amendment." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment Exempting Public Health Rules From Congressional Approval. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment to exempt from Congressional approval under the REINS Act public health and safety regulations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "exempt[ed] rules pertaining to public health and safety from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill." The underlying measure HR 427, the REINS Act, which required Congressional approval for executive regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 166 to 242. The underlying legislation passed the House on July 28, 2015 and no further action was taken. [House Vote 477, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 688; Congressional Actions, HR 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): The Amendment Would Have Allowed Vital Public Health Regulations To Be Put Into Effect Without Delay. According to a floor speech by Rep. Cicilline, "Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 427 would exempt rules concerning public health or safety from the onerous requirements of this legislation. It is simply an acknowledgment that, when a rule is necessary to protect public health and when it is beneficial and in the public interest, the rule be put into effect without unnecessary delay. If this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will create a regulatory environment that will make it nearly impossible for agencies to safeguard the public well-being." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA): Health And Public Safety Regulations Are A Large Part Of Federal Regulations, Thus They Should Be Under Congressional Oversight. In a floor speech by Rep. Goodlatte, "Health and public safety regulation, done properly, serves important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. But Federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an immense part of total Federal regulation and has been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage-destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing cumulative cost of Federal regulation and increase the accountability of our regulatory system to the people." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment Exempting Safety Rules For Natural Gas Or Hazardous Materials Pipelines From The REINS Act. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that exempted from Congressional approval under the REINS Act any rules that ensured safety for natural gas or hazardous materials pipelines. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "exempt[ed] rules intended to ensure the safety of natural gas or hazardous materials pipelines from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill." The underlying measure was HR 427, the REINS Act, which required Congressional approval of executive regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more per year. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 166 to 244. The underlying legislation passed the House on July 28, 2015 and no further action was taken. [House Vote 476, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 687; Congressional Actions, HR 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. Capps (D-CA): The Amendment Would Allow Important Safety Rules To Be Implemented Immediately Without Waiting For Congressional Approval. According to a floor speech by Rep. Capps, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It would ensure that oil and gas pipeline safety rules and pipeline spill prevention or mitigation rules are not considered 'major rules' under this bill. By design, the REINS Act would likely delay or stop virtually all future Federal rulemaking. We could spend hours listening to some of the countless health and safety problems that this bill would cause. I commend my colleagues for raising some of these issues in the other amendments that are being offered today and debated. My amendment focuses on protecting oil and gas pipeline safety and spill mitigation rules from the needless and costly delays imposed by this bill. These rules are particularly important to me and to my constituents in the wake of the recent oil spill in my district." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA): The Amendment Would Exempt Regulations That Actually Would Have Reduced Safety And Ideologically-Driven Regulations. According to a floor speech by Rep. Goodlatte, "On the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures regulations that actually threaten to decrease safety. They also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new, ideologically driven regulations intended to impede Americans' access to new sources of inexpensive, clean, and plentiful natural gas. This amendment clearly says that the Congress can and has voted to have pipeline accountability and safety measures regulated but that the Congress doesn't care what those regulations are. The Congress does care what the regulations are, and that is why they should come back here so that the Congress can confirm that the regulations written comport with the legislation already passed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment Exempting Rules That Would Create Jobs From Congressional Approval Under The REINS Act. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that exempted from Congressional approval under the REINS Act any rule that the Office of Management and Budget had already determined would create jobs. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "exempt[ed] rules that the Office of Management and Budget determined would increase jobs from the congressional approval process established in the bill." The underlying legislation was H.R. 427, the REINS Act, which required Congressional approval for any new executive regulations and rules with an economic impact of more than $100 million. The vote was on approving the amendment and the House rejected it 163 to 246. The underlying legislation passed the House on 7/28/15 and no further action was taken. [House Vote 475, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 686; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. Johnson (D-GA): "No Credible Evidence In Support Of The Majority's Reiteration Of 'Job-Killing' Regulations Undermining Economic Growth." According to a floor speech by Rep. Johnson obtained via the Congressional Record, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment would except from H.R. 427 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation. As with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this Congress, the proponents of H.R. 427 argue that it will grow the economy, create jobs, and increase America's competitiveness internationally. But we cannot pretend that this politicized legislation is about economic growth or American prosperity. As I have noted during the consideration of each of the antiregulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th Congress, there is simply no credible evidence in support of the majority's reiteration of 'job-killing' regulations undermining economic growth---zero." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA): Amendment Incentivizes The OMB To Manipulate Its Analysis In Order To Allow Regulations To Be Exempted From Congressional Approval. According to a floor speech by Rep. Goodlatte obtained via the Congressional Record, "Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures regulations that the Office of Management and Budget determines will lead to net job creation.The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives the OMB to manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too often, the OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment Requiring Rules Related To The Affordable Care Act To Be Subject To Congressional Approval Under The REINS Act. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that required regulations under the Affordable Care Act to be subject to Congressional approval as established by the REINS Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "require[d] that rule and regulations under the Affordable Care Act to be subject to the congressional approval process established in the bill." The underlying legislation was HR 427, the REINS Act, which required Congressional approval for executive regulations and rules with an economic impact of more than $100 million. The vote was on the amendment and the House approved the amendment 242 to167. The underlying legislation passed the House on 7/28/15 and no further action was taken. [House Vote 474, 7/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 684; Congressional Actions, H.R. 427]
REINS Act Would Require Congressional Approval For Any New Major Regulation. According to Congressional Quarterly, the REINS Act would "require Congress to approve all executive agency regulatory proposals categorized as 'major rules' before their implementation and would also create an expedited consideration process for joint congressional resolutions of approval. The bill defines 'major rules' as regulations with an annual economic impact greater than $100 million, and would not require congressional approval of regulations that are not categorized as 'major rules' or of rule proposals issued by the Federal Reserve or the Federal Open Market Committee." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15]
Rep. Johnson (D-GA): The Amendment Would "Jeopardize The Health And Safety Of Americans" By Subjecting Affordable Care Act Rules To Congressional Approval. According to a floor speech by Rep. Johnson, "Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it would make the REINS Act thoroughly problematic insofar as the Affordable Care Act is concerned. One of my principal concerns about the REINS Act is it would jeopardize the health and safety of Americans by substantially delaying and possibly derailing critical regulations from ever going into effect. As currently drafted, the REINS Act only applies to major regulations, that is, regulations having an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy; regulations causing a major increase in prices or costs for consumers, individual industries, governmental agencies, or geographic regions; and regulations having a significant adverse impact on competition, employment, investment, and productivity. This amendment, however, would subject all regulations, not just major regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act, to the REINS Act's burdensome requirements." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Johnson (D-GA): Amendment Was An Attempt To Undermine The Affordable Care Act's Implementation And Success. According to a floor speech by Rep. Johnson, "It is obvious that this amendment has a different purpose. It is yet another attempt by the majority to undermine the implementation of the comprehensive healthcare reform legislation that was enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act, which, I might remind my colleagues, has been upheld not once, but twice, by the United States Supreme Court. We cannot allow the majority to do through this antiregulatory bill what it has repeatedly failed to do during the last 4 years, namely, to defeat healthcare reform. The REINS Act is a hopelessly flawed bill, and this amendment would only make it worse." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Smith (R-MO): The Amendment Would Protect Individuals From New, Harmful Regulations Under The Affordable Care Act. According to a floor speech by Rep. Smith, "That is why I am offering an amendment to protect families and job creators from the mounting uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act. My amendment revises the definition of a major regulation to specifically include any regulation made under the Affordable Care Act. With over 3,000 pages of Federal regulations already issued and many more to follow, Congress must protect folks from this troublesome law and keep it from causing further damage to our healthcare system. Mr. Chairman, there is a broad bipartisan concern to the Affordable Care Act. This administration has demonstrated its own uncertainty through the delays to several key provisions of the bill. Congress must stand up for the folks back home and give the American people a voice. My amendment does just that." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For The REINS Act As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for the REINS Act. According to the Republican Study Committee, the "RSC budget incorporates the REINS Act to require that Congress approve of any regulations that have an annual economic impact of $50 million or more." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted For A Proposal That Would Have Required Congressional Approval For Any Regulation That Would Have Had Over $100 Million In Economic Impact. In September 2015, Schweikert voted for a proposal that would have required Congressional approval for rules having more than $100 million in annual economic impact. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure includes the provisions of HR 367, which modifies the federal rule-making process by preventing all 'major rules' from being implemented unless Congress enacts legislation approving them, rather than allowing Congress to disapprove of proposed rules and regulations as is now the case. It creates an expedited procedure for House and Senate consideration of resolutions of approval, which would not be subject to amendment. 'Major rules' that would require congressional approval to be implemented generally would be those having an annual economic impact greater than $100 million." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/24/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
Supporters Of The REINS Act Claimed That Regulations Acted As A Tax On Businesses That Harmed Economic Growth. According to the House Budget Committee Report on H.R. 10, the REINS Act, "Excessive Federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation, and postpones investment in the economy. When the rules constantly change, small businesses cannot properly plan for the future. The Committee is dedicated to creating an environment where job creators can flourish, rather than flounder. The existing burden of regulation has already become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. As of 2008, Federal regulations cost our economy $1.75 trillion each year, as estimated by the Small Business Administration. To that burden, the Administration seeks to add billions upon billions more." [House Report 112-278, 11/18/11]
Opponents Considered The REINS Act An Unconstitutional Restriction On Executive Powers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Critics call it [the REINS Act] an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the executive branch's ability to implement laws." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/11]
Some Republicans Worried That The Bill Would Stop Beneficial Rules And That Regulation Review Would Take Up Too Much Time On The House Floor. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans have raised new concerns that the measure (HR 10) could derail rules needed to protect consumers, workers and public safety. They are also worried that congressional review of numerous regulations could tie up the House floor schedule." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/11]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Require That Congress Approve Any "Major" Regulations, Including Those That Would Cost More Than $50 Million, Would Hurt The Economy, Or Were Authorized By The Affordable Care Act. In August 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "require[d] Congress to approve executive agency regulatory proposals that are deemed to be 'major rules.' As amended, the bill would [have] include[d] in the definition of 'major rules' those likely to cost more than $50 million; rules that would have adverse economic effects; any regulations crafted to implement or provide for the collection of a carbon tax; and rules made under the 2010 health care overhaul law." The House passed the bill by a vote of 232 to 183; however, as of mid-December 2013, the Senate had taken no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 445, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 367]
The Bill Required Federal Agencies To List Related Regulations From Other Agencies When Reporting To Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "also would require that federal agencies list, in reports submitted to Congress, any related regulatory actions or pending actions by another federal agency with authority to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13]
The Bill's Supporters Said It Would Stop The Administration's Unprecedented Rate Of Regulation, Which Has Led To Lost Jobs And Lower Economic Growth. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said, "The number of new major regulations the Obama administration has issued and plans to issue--generally, regulations with more than $100 million in impacts--is without modern precedent. Testimony before the Judiciary Committee this term and during the 112th Congress has plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and declining levels of jobs and growth. The REINS Act is one of the most powerful measures we can adopt to put an end to regulation that wrongheadedly imposes the administration's flawed policies on the American people. It achieves that result in the simplest and clearest ways--by requiring an up-or down vote by the people's representatives in Congress before any new major regulation can be imposed on our economy." [Congressional Record, 8/1/13]
The White House Said That The REINS Act Would "Create Business Uncertainty, Undermine Much-Needed Protections Of The American Public, And Cause Unnecessary Confusion." According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "[T]he Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, which would impose an unprecedented requirement that a joint resolution of approval be enacted by the Congress before any major rule of Executive Branch agencies could have force or effect. This radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches would delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion." [Office of Management and Budget, 7/31/13]
Opponents Considered The REINS Act An Unconstitutional Restriction On Executive Powers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Critics call it [the REINS Act] an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the executive branch's ability to implement laws." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/11]
2011: Some Republicans Worried That The Bill Would Stop Beneficial Rules And That Regulation Review Would Take Up Too Much Time On The House Floor. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans have raised new concerns that the measure [...] could derail rules needed to protect consumers, workers and public safety. They are also worried that congressional review of numerous regulations could tie up the House floor schedule." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/11]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Exempting Various Rules From A Bill That Required Congressional Approval Of "Major" Regulations, Including Those That Would Cost More Than $50 Million, Would Hurt The Economy, Or Were Authorized By The Affordable Care Act. In August 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement rules that would create jobs or economic growth; reduce the deficit; prevent outsourcing of U.S. jobs; protect Medicare and Medicaid benefits; guarantee equal pay for women; protect safe drinking water or promote safe disposal of hazardous waste; repeal certain corporate tax provisions; prevent child sex trafficking and child pornography; protect against terrorist attacks; and rules related to health safety for children, seniors and veterans." The House rejected the motion by a vote of 185 to 229; however, as of mid-December 2013, the Senate had taken no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 444, 8/2/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/2/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 367]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Requiring Congressional Approval For Any Regulation That Had Over $100 Million In Economic Impact. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support a proposal to require all regulations with more than $100 million in economic impact to be approved by Congress, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2023. According to The Republican Study Committee, The RSC budget proposes several common sense solutions drawn from RSC member bills, including the Regulatory Sunset and Review Act, The REINS Act, and the Jobs Through Growth Act, that check regulatory proliferation and unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit:" The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Supporters Of The REINS Act Claimed That Regulations Acted As A Tax On Businesses That Harmed Economic Growth. According to the House Budget Committee Report on H.R. 10, the REINS Act, "Excessive Federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation, and postpones investment in the economy. When the rules constantly change, small businesses cannot properly plan for the future. The Committee is dedicated to creating an environment where job creators can flourish, rather than flounder. The existing burden of regulation has already become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. As of 2008, Federal regulations cost our economy $1.75 trillion each year, as estimated by the Small Business Administration. To that burden, the Administration seeks to add billions upon billions more." [House Report 112-278, 11/18/11]
Opponents Considered The REINS Act An Unconstitutional Restriction On Executive Powers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Critics call it [the REINS Act] an unconstitutional intrusion by Congress into the executive branch's ability to implement laws." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/11]
Some Republicans Worried That The Bill Would Stop Beneficial Rules And That Regulation Review Would Take Up Too Much Time On The House Floor. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some Republicans have raised new concerns that the measure (HR 10) could derail rules needed to protect consumers, workers and public safety. They are also worried that congressional review of numerous regulations could tie up the House floor schedule." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/11]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Would Modify The Federal Rulemaking Process, Including Required Agencies To Estimate Potential Costs And Benefits Of Alternatives. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would modify the rulemaking policy of the government. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have, "modify the federal rulemaking process by requiring agencies to estimate the cost of proposed regulations and consider new criteria, including potential costs and benefits of alternatives. The bill would create additional steps that agencies must follow when proposing major rules with annual costs of more than $100 million, or high-impact rules with annual costs of more than $1 billion, including an advanced-notice comment period to determine whether the rule-making process should proceed." The vote was on passage and the House passed the bill 250 to 175. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 28, 1/13/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 9/30/15; Statement of Administration Policy, 1/12/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 185]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Amending Federal Rules On Frivolous Lawsuits Mandating Sanctions On Those That File Them, Similar To A Situation Pre-1993 When The Rules Were Changed. In November 2013, Schweikert voted for legislation modifying frivolous lawsuit rules. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would require that courts impose sanctions on parties that violate the prohibition on the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Penalties would include payments to the other party for expenses, including attorneys' fees and other costs, as well as court payments and non-monetary sanctions like dismissal of the lawsuit. The bill would remove parties' ability to withdraw lawsuits or correct claims within 21 days of filing." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 228 to 195. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 581, 11/14/13; Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2655]
Federal, Rules Of Civil Procedures, Rule 11 Governs Sanctions For Frivolous Lawsuits Of Motions; Prior To 1993, Sanctions Were Mandatory, Afterwards They Were Left To The Courts To Decide. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 lays out how sanctions are determined in the filing of a frivolous lawsuit or legal motion. Rule 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in litigation that harasses or causes unnecessary delay, or from making legal arguments based on unwarranted factual assertions. A party that believes another party or attorney has violated Rule 11 can make a motion for sanctions. Prior to 1993, sanctions against parties that filed frivolous lawsuits were mandatory. Rule 11 was changed that year, however, and decisions since that time on whether sanctions are imposed and whether the complaining party should be reimbursed for increased attorneys' fees resulting from frivolous legal arguments have been left to the discretion of the court." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
The Safe Harbor Rule From The 1993 Changes Gives A Party 21 Days To Withdraw Before A Sanction Can Be Imposed. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The revised rule also provided a 'safe harbor' that gives a party 21 days to withdraw a challenged claim or defense before sanctions can be imposed. If a party fails to withdraw or modify an alleged claim or defense within that time period, the court can then impose sanctions, including assessing reasonable attorneys' fees if the court so decides." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
Opponents Of A Similar Bill Claim That Mandatory Sanctions Promote More Frivolous Lawsuits; 87 Percent Of Judges Surveyed In 2005 Supported The 1993 Change. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it would reinstate rules that were widely recognized to have been failures in the decade before Rule 11 was changed in 1993. If anything, the proposed changes would promote further litigation as the prospect of mandatory sanctions and monetary compensation for attorneys' fees spur Rule 11 proceedings. They note that between 1983 and 1993 those elements triggered almost 7,000 Rule 11 filings, as attorneys took legal actions both on cases themselves and against opposing counsels, compared with just 19 such filings from 1938 to 1983, when sanctions were not required. The changes made in 1993 were intended to prevent that needless litigation and have been tremendously successful, with 87% of judges surveyed in 2005 favoring the changes." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]
Opponents Of A Similar Bill Note That Civil Rights Cases Are More Frequently Cited For Potential Frivolous Claims Due To The Nature Of Their Complaints. According to Congressional Quarterly "Opponents also say the proposed rule changes would have a chilling impact on civil rights cases. Because civil rights cases often involve an 'argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law,' they often involve novel issues that are particularly susceptible to claims of frivolity. Noting that a 1991 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that Rule 11 motions occurred more frequently in civil rights cases, opponents contend that a return to the pre-1993 version of Rule 11 would significantly disadvantage civil rights plaintiffs." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/15]