2017: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove A Labor Department Rule Defining The Occupations That States Can Require A Drug Test As A Condition For Unemployment Benefits. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for disapproving a DOL rule related to drug-testing and unemployment benefits via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Labor Department on Aug. 1, 2016, that defines the occupations for which states can require individuals applying for unemployment benefits to undergo drug testing (the rule formally titled 'Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants'). The measure provides that the rule would have no force or effect." The vote was on the resolution. The House adopted the legislation by a vote of 236 to 189. President Trump later signed the bill into law. [House Vote 97, 2/15/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 42]
2012 Legislation Allowed The Labor Department To Create A Rule Allowing States To Require Drug Testing For Unemployment Benefits For Persons Only If Their "Suitable Work" Normally Conducts Drug Tests, Or If The Person Lost Their Most Recent Job Because Of A Failed Drug Test. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (PL 112-96) permitted states to conduct drug testing on individuals applying for unemployment benefits if the individual's only 'suitable work' is an occupation where drug testing is regularly conducted, or if the applicant was terminated from his or her most recent job because of the unlawful use of controlled substances. In such cases, states could deny unemployment benefits to applicants who test positive for drug use. The 2012 law allowed the Labor Department to issue regulations determining those occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. The department initiated such a rule-making in October 2014 and in August 2016 issued a final rule that became effective Sept. 30. Under the final rule, occupations that regularly test for drugs are defined as those 'specifically identified in a State or Federal law as requiring an employee to be tested for controlled substances,' including any new laws that are enacted (the rule as originally proposed would have applied only to those state and federal laws requiring testing that were in effect at that time)." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
The Law Also Allowed For A State To Deny Benefits If The Person Failed The Drug Test. According to the National Employment Law Project, "Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, however, Congress amended section 303 of the Social Security Act to permit states to test UI applicants for drugs if: The applicant was discharged for unlawful use of controlled substances, or The applicant is only available for suitable work in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing (as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor). The law also permitted states to deny benefits to an applicant who tests positive for drugs under either of these circumstances." [National Employment Law Project, 2/17]
The Occupations Covered By The Rule Included Ones Already Where Drug Testing Was Required By State Or Federal Law, Ones That Require The Person To Carry A Gun, Drive Passenger Vehicles, Aviation Flight Crewmembers, Air Traffic Controllers And Railroad Operators. According to the National Employment Law Project, "The Department of Labor published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 8, 2014, and final regulations identifying occupations that regularly conduct drug testing became effective on August 1, 2016. The final regulation defined 'occupation' as a position or class of positions that are required, or may be required in the future, by state or federal law to be drug tested. More specifically, pursuant to the Labor Department's regulations, occupations for which state UI agencies can conduct drug testing include: Occupations where testing is required by state or federal law, Occupations that require carrying a firearm, Motor vehicle operators carrying passengers, Aviation flight crewmembers and air traffic controllers, and Railroad operating crews." [National Employment Law Project, 2/17]
By Disapproving The Rule, It Is Possible That Republicans Will Then Attempt To Pass A Law Simply Allowing States To Drug Test For Unemployment Benefits At-Will. According to the National Employment Law Project, "Congressional Republicans, unhappy with the compromise they agreed to in 2012, have criticized the Labor Department regulations since they were proposed, claiming they were too narrowly drawn even though they closely tracked the legislation. The House of Representatives is now planning to invoke the Congressional Review Act to invalidate these regulations; and presumably, proponents of drug testing are counting on passage of a bill introduced in the 114th Congress by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) that would effectively allow states to drug test all jobless workers filing for unemployment insurance. This bill, which we expect will be reintroduced shortly, would allow states to define occupations that "regularly" drug test to include all occupations where testing (including pre-employment testing) is permitted. If passed, this bill would open the floodgates for states to arbitrarily and unconstitutionally drug test its citizens solely because they are applying for UI benefits." [National Employment Law Project, 2/17]
National Employment Law Project: "Requiring A Urine Sample From A Worker Without A Job Only Because She Applies For UI Allows State Governments To Legitimize An Ugly Stereotype." According to the National Employment Law Project, "Requiring a urine sample from a worker without a job only because she applies for UI allows state governments to legitimize an ugly stereotype that, among other things, will be detrimental to the reemployment efforts of the unemployed. Scapegoating those who need, and are entitled to depend on, basic social insurance programs is inconsistent with the UI program's purpose and history. It is insulting to millions of Americans who are shouldering the greatest burdens of job loss and struggling to get back on the economic ladder." [National Employment Law Project, 2/17]
Supporters Of The Rule Believe That Broadly Requiring Drug Testing For Unemployment Is Unconstitutional. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the resolution, primarily Democrats, say that allowing states to broadly require drug testing for unemployment benefits is an unconstitutional practice that unnecessarily punishes workers who have lost their jobs and need support while they seek new work. They argue that it was not the intent of Congress to cover more of the workforce than those occupations for which drug testing is specifically required under state or federal law, and that the final rule provided flexibility by including new laws as they are enacted." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
Rule Opponents Claim That The Final Rule Was Too Limiting In The Number Of Allowable Industries To Drug Test. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the resolution to disapprove the rule, primarily Republicans, say the Labor Department's definition of occupations where drug testing may be conducted is too narrow and unnecessarily limits a state's ability to require drug testing as allowed by the 2012 law. They say the public interest is better served by allowing states to implement broader interpretations of when drug testing should be regularly conducted, as the states seek to help their residents find new jobs and improve their readiness to return to work." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Extend The Length Of Time That States Could Recover Fraudulent Pandemic-Related Unemployment Insurance Payments And Removing $2 Billion From The Labor Department That Was Provided For Pandemic-Related Unemployment Compensation. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, which would "extend the length of time that states have to recover fraudulent COVID-19 and regular unemployment insurance benefit payments and allow states to retain certain percentages of recovered overpayments to use for UI program integrity initiatives. Specifically, the bill would extend from five to 10 years the statute of limitations for criminal charges or civil enforcement actions alleging that an individual engaged in UI benefit fraud. It would extend, from three to 10 years after a payment is made, the amount of time states have to recover UI overpayments made due to fraud under pandemic unemployment assistance programs, the mixed earner unemployment benefit program established during the pandemic, extended UI benefits during the pandemic, and the first week of regular benefits that were fully federally-funded during the pandemic. It would allow states to retain 25 percent of any such recovered funds and require states to use such funds for certain UI program integrity activities, including hiring fraud investigators and prosecutors and modernizing unemployment compensation systems. Beginning two years after enactment, it would allow states to retain five percent of any recovered overpayments of regular and extended unemployment insurance benefits, unless the overpayment was caused by a state agency's error, to be used for UI program integrity and administration costs, including deterring, detecting and preventing improper payments; payments to the Treasury Department on a state loan from the unemployment trust fund; and modernizing state UI technology infrastructure. It would establish requirements for states to be eligible for retention of such funds, including that they use a system for crossmatching UI claimants, use a national new hires directory to identify individuals who may have become employed, and take actions to prevent payments to incarcerated and deceased individuals. It would also reinstate and extend through 2030 certain flexibility for states to hire temporary staff to identify and prosecute fraudulent pandemic UI benefits. As an offset, the bill would repeal a provision in the March 2020 coronavirus response law (PL 116-136) that provided $2 billion for the Labor Department to detect and prevent fraud, promote equitable access, and ensure timely payment with respect to unemployment compensation programs." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 200, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 211, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1163]
The Bill Would Rescind Unspent Pandemic-Era Funding That Was Given To The Labor Department In An Effort To Address Unemployment Insurance Fraud. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On a mostly party-line vote of 230-200, the GOP-controlled House passed a bill Thursday that would repeal unspent pandemic-era funds appropriated to the Labor Department for efforts to crack down on unemployment insurance fraud." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/23]
The Bill Would Rescind $400 Million In Unobligated Funds, Shift The Money To State For Unemployment Insurance "Program Integrity" Activities And Extend The Time To Recoup Overpayments To 10 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would take back the $400 million in unobligated balances in that program and give it to the states for their own unemployment insurance 'program integrity' activities, and extend the time states have to recoup overpayments to 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/23]
The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Bill Would Decrease Deficits By A Net $373 Million Over 10 Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure (HR 1163), approved by the Ways and Means Committee in February, would lower deficits by a net $373 million over a decade. The White House threatened to veto the measure, saying it could cripple efforts to fight fraud and identify theft." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/23]
The Bill Would Extend The Statute Of Limitations To Address Overpayment Of Pandemic-Related Unemployment Benefits And Authorize States To Keep Some Funds That Were Recovered. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would extend the statute of limitations for seeking overpayment of unemployment benefits tied to the pandemic and allow states to keep a portion of funds that are recovered from overpayments or fraudulent payments." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23]
The Biden Administration Threatened To Veto The Bill, Arguing It Would Hinder Efforts To Combat Fraud By Rescinding $2 Billion In Labor Funding To Administer Unemployment Benefits. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Biden administration issued a veto threat Monday for the bill, arguing it would undermine efforts to fight fraud by revoking $2 billion in Labor Department funding to administer unemployment benefits programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Protecting Taxpayers And Victims Of Unemployment Fraud Act. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 221 to 210, thus the House voted on passage subsequently. [House Vote 210, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1163]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Protecting Taxpayers And Victims Of Unemployment Fraud Act. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 383) that would that would provide for floor consideration of [...] the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act (HR 1163). The rule would provide for up to five hours of debate on the Secure the Border Act and up to one hour of debate on the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act. It would provide for automatic adoption of a Smith, R-Mo., manager's amendment to HR 1163 that would direct the Treasury Department to use unobligated funds provided by previous pandemic relief legislation for administration and fraud prevention of unemployment programs to offset any loss in the amount of funds deposited in state unemployment funds as a result of the bill, subject to appropriations." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 215 to 209. [House Vote 207, 5/10/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1163]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Protecting Taxpayers And Victims Of Unemployment Fraud Act. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 383) that would that would provide for floor consideration of [...] the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act (HR 1163). The rule would provide for up to five hours of debate on the Secure the Border Act and up to one hour of debate on the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act. It would provide for automatic adoption of a Smith, R-Mo., manager's amendment to HR 1163 that would direct the Treasury Department to use unobligated funds provided by previous pandemic relief legislation for administration and fraud prevention of unemployment programs to offset any loss in the amount of funds deposited in state unemployment funds as a result of the bill, subject to appropriations." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 215 to 211. [House Vote 205, 5/10/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1163]