2014: Schweikert Voted To Bar Retiring The A-10 Aircraft. In June 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the use of funds in the bill to divest, retire, transfer or place in storage any A-10 aircraft, or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve component associated with such aircraft." The underlying legislation was an FY 2015 defense appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 300 to 114. The House later passed the underlying bill, which died in the Senate. However, a CR, which did became law, included the provision. [House Vote 322, 6/19/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/14; Congress.gov, H.R. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 903; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4870]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Provide $10.6 Billion For FY 2013 Military Construction, $2.4 Billion Less Than FY2012 Levels And $611 Million Less Than Requested. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for the House's version of the FY 2013 Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Bill, which was bundled with a defense appropriations bill for FY2013, and a continuing resolution funding the rest of the government through the end of FY 2013 at FY 2012 levels. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill appropriates a net total of $10.6 billion for all military construction in FY 2013, $2.4 billion less than the FY 2012 level and $611 million (5%) less than the president's request." The House passed the bill by a vote of 267 to 151. Following House passage, the Senate passed a substitute version of the bill, which the House then approved and the president signed into law. [House Vote 62, 3/6/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 933]
The Bill's Military Construction Funding Would Have Been Reduced An Additional 7.8 Percent By The 2011 Debt Limit Deal's Automatic Budget Cuts. According to Congressional Quarterly, "All the military construction funding in the bill would be subject to defense sequestration, which OMB estimates would cut 7.8%." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13]
Military Construction Funds Cover Construction And Improvement Of Military Infrastructure. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Military construction accounts provide funds for new construction, construction improvements, planning and design, and host nation support. Projects funded by these accounts include facilities for operations, training, maintenance, research and development, supply, medical care and force protection, as well as unaccompanied housing, utilities infrastructure and land acquisition." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/13]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The FY 2014 NDAA, Which Included Provisions Cutting The Scheduled 2014 Military Pay Increase From 1.8 Percent To 1.0 Percent. In December 2013, Schweikert effectively voted for the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, included provisions that, "authorize[d] an across-the-board 1% pay increase for military personnel in FY 2014, equal to the president's request. The explanatory statement notes that on August 30, the president transmitted to Congress an alternative pay plan establishing an across-the-board pay increase of 1 percent for members of the uniformed services for calendar year 2014 rather than the 1.8 percent that would otherwise have taken effect under current law." The vote was on a House resolution that, in effect, agreed to an amended version of the underlying bill. The amendment version, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize[d] $632.8 billion for discretionary and mandatory defense programs in FY 2014, roughly equal to the president's request. The measure's authorization includes $80.7 billion in FY 2014 contingency funds authorized specifically to support operations in Afghanistan and the general war on terrorism --- although other funds in the bill could be used for such support as well. Also included in the total is $17.6 billion authorized for national security programs at the Energy Department." The Senate subsequently agreed to the House-passed legislation and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 641, 12/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3304; H.Res. 441, 12/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 441]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Repealing Cuts To Working-Age Military Retiree Pensions Included In The Ryan-Murray Budget Agreement. In February 2014, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "repeal[ed] the 1 percent reduction to annual cost-of-living adjustments for most working-age military retirees enacted in the December 2013 budget agreement. It also [...] create[d] a $2.3 billion fund that could be used to pay for either a short-term 'patch' or contribute toward a permanent overhaul of the formula that determines Medicare physician reimbursement rates. The bill [was] offset by extending sequester cuts to certain mandatory spending by one year, until fiscal 2024." The House passed the bill by a vote of 326 to 90. Subsequently, the Senate also passed the bill, and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 60, 2/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/14; Congressional Actions, S. 25]
Bill Would Limit Ryan-Murray Budget Agreement's COLA Reduction For Working-Age Military Retirement Pay To Those Who Joined The Military In 2014 Or Later. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure repeals --- for current members of the military and existing military retirees --- the 1% reduction to annual cost-of-living adjustments for the military pensions of those working-age military retirees under the age of 62 that is otherwise required under the Ryan-Murray Bipartisan Budget Agreement (PL 113-67). Instead, the measure provides that this retiree COLA reduction apply only to servicemembers who first join the military beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014. As under the December budget law, upon reaching the age of 62 an individual's retirement pay would be adjusted upward to where it would have been had the COLA reductions not taken place." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/14]
December 2013: Ryan-Murray Budget Deal Cut Working-Age Military Pensions By Reducing The Annual Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment By One Percent After 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, one of the provisions of the December 2013 budget bill "reduce[d] by 1% the annual cost-of-living adjustments for military pensions for those working-age military retirees who are under the age of 62. Under the measure, this COLA reduction would become effective Dec. 1, 2015. [...] CBO estimate[d] that this provision would reduce direct spending by $6.2 billion over 10 years." The provision, according to Congressional Quarterly, was one of several that "reduce[d] mandatory spending and increase[d] revenues in order to offset the [overall bill's] increased discretionary caps for FY 2014 and FY 2015 and partial rollback of sequestration." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/20/13]
Opponents Of Pension Cut Had Argued At The Time That It Was Unfair To Veterans, Especially Those Medically Retired Due To Injury In The Line Of Duty. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In a joint statement earlier this week, three Senate Armed Services Committee Republicans --- Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Roger Wicker of Mississippi --- opposed reducing government spending 'on the backs of our military retirees who have risked their lives to defend our country and who have already sacrificed so much. We were also appalled to learn that this legislation would even reduce the retirements of those who have been injured in the line of duty and have been medically retired as a result. That is unconscionable, and we call on members of both parties to work with us now to replace these misguided cuts.' Under the legislation, they said, 'a Sergeant First Class in the Army who qualifies for retirement after 20 years of service at age 40, and who has most likely deployed multiple times to war, could lose approximately $72,000 between retirement and turning age 62.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/13]
Supporters Of This Repeal Bill Said That It Was Distasteful, But Necessary. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Members of both parties expressed displeasure with the offset. But ahead of the vote, senators conceded that the House-passed measure was likely the best option to repeal the pension cut, which is politically unpopular with both parties. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said the extension of spending caps was 'a weak pay-for,' but he considered not paying for the increase 'utterly outrageous.' On Monday, the Senate voted 94-0 to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to its own measure (S 1963), sponsored by Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor, that would repeal the cost-of-living reduction without an offset. Senate Democrats had initially opposed including an offset in the legislation. 'I'm not particularly happy about it, but we do have to fix it,' said Tim Kaine, D-Va. 'And this might be the most immediate way to do it.;" [Congressional Quarterly, 2/12/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Cutting Working-Age Military Pensions By Reducing The Annual Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment By One Percent After 2015. In December 2013, Schweikert voted against the Ryan-Murray budget compromise bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, one of the bill's provisions "reduce[d] by 1% the annual cost-of-living adjustments for military pensions for those working-age military retirees who are under the age of 62. Under the measure, this COLA reduction would become effective Dec. 1, 2015. [...] CBO estimate[d] that this provision would reduce direct spending by $6.2 billion over 10 years." The provision, according to Congressional Quarterly, was one of several that "reduce[d] mandatory spending and increase[d] revenues in order to offset the [overall bill's] increased discretionary caps for FY 2014 and FY 2015 and partial rollback of sequestration." The House passed the bill by a vote of 332 to 94. The bill was subsequently approved by the Senate, and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 640, 12/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 12/20/13; Congressional Actions, H .J. Res.59]
Military Retirees Who Served At Least 20 Years Can Collect Retirement Pay While Still Of Working Age. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Members of the military with 20 years of service can retire and collect retired pay based on the highest 36 months of their basic pay. Many such military retirees are still of working age and subsequently begin second careers while collecting military retirement." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/20/13]
COLA Reduction Would Not Affect Retiree's Post-Working-Age Retirement Pay. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Upon reaching the age of 62, an individual's retirement pay would be adjusted upward to where it would have been had the COLA reductions not taken place." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/20/13]
Disabled Veterans Not Exempted From Cut; Defense Secretary Later Said He Supported Doing So. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel clearly announced to reporters Thursday that the Defense Department would support sparing disabled retirees a pension cut. 'Any changes to cost-of-living adjustments should not apply to medically disabled retirees,' he said, and such people 'need to be exempted.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/13]
Opponents Argued Cut Unfair To Veterans, Especially Those Medically Retired Due To Injury In The Line Of Duty. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In a joint statement earlier this week, three Senate Armed Services Committee Republicans --- Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Roger Wicker of Mississippi --- opposed reducing government spending 'on the backs of our military retirees who have risked their lives to defend our country and who have already sacrificed so much. We were also appalled to learn that this legislation would even reduce the retirements of those who have been injured in the line of duty and have been medically retired as a result. That is unconscionable, and we call on members of both parties to work with us now to replace these misguided cuts.' Under the legislation, they said, 'a Sergeant First Class in the Army who qualifies for retirement after 20 years of service at age 40, and who has most likely deployed multiple times to war, could lose approximately $72,000 between retirement and turning age 62.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote No And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The FY 2014 NDAA, Which Had Provisions Designed To Reduce Sexual Assault In The Military, Including Prohibiting Retaliation Against Victims And Taking Away Commanders' Authority To Overturn Or Reduce Court-Martial Findings Of Guilt. In December 2013, Schweikert effectively for the FY 2014 NDAA which included provisions designed to reduce sexual assault in the military. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The compromise measure would make several statutory changes aimed at reducing sexual assault in the military. A military study estimated that there were 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual contact within the force last year, but just over 10 percent were actually reported. 'Our bill does contain groundbreaking reforms that will provide much-needed assistance to victims of sexual assault, while also helping establish a climate in the military in which there is no tolerance for sexual assault or for retaliation against those who report it,' Levin said. The agreement would strip commanders of the authority to dismiss a finding by a court-martial. Under the measure, commanders also would be prohibited from reducing guilty findings to guilty of a lesser offense. It also would require a civilian review if a commander declines to prosecute a case. It would make retaliating against victims who report instances of sexual assault a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The Senate subsequently agreed to the House-passed legislation and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 641, 12/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/13; H.Res. 441, 12/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3304; H.Res. 441, 12/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 441]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Allowing Military Victims Of Sexual Assault The Option Of Referring Cases To The Relevant Military Office Of The Chief Prosecutor Instead Of The Accused's Military Commander. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against a motion to recommit the bill with an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for the referral of sexual assault charges or sex-related offenses to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for the branch of the military the accused is a member of unless the victim elects that the charge be referred only to the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate." A command's staff judge advocate provides legal advice to the command. The underlying FY 2014 Defense Authorization bill included a number of provisions addressing sexual assault in the military. The vote was on a motion to recommit the with instructions to report it back with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 194 to 225. [House Vote 243, 6/14/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/13; Army Regulation 27-1, 9/13/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1960]
Sexual Assault In The Military Increased By Nearly A Third Between 2010 And 2012, But Only A Fraction Of Those Incidents Were Reported And Even Fewer Were Prosecuted. According to USA Today, "The issue of sexual assault in the ranks erupted in the spring when the Pentagon released a study estimating that 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual contact --- from groping to rape --- occurred in 2012. That represented an increase by nearly a third over 2010. About 3,000 cases of sexual assault were reported, and about 300 were prosecuted." [USA Today, 11/20/13]
Issue Arose After Air Force General Overturned Sexual Assault Conviction Of A Lt. Colonel And Returned Him To Active Duty. According to ABC News, "The bill's backers are using the case of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson as a vessel for their perceived need for reform. In November, Wilkerson, an F-16 pilot, was convicted by an all-male jury of aggravated sexual assault against a female contractor at Aviano Airbase in Italy. Wilkerson, who also served as the inspector general at the base, was sentenced to a year in prison and dismissal from the service. But the decision was reversed last month by the same commander who appointed that jury, Third Air Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin. Wilkerson has since returned to active duty. Franklin made the change against the recommendation of his staff lawyer and instead agreed with Wilkerson's attorney that prosecutors had not proven that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A convening authority is required for every court in the armed forces, although such clemency is rarely exercised." [ABC News, 3/12/13]
Under Current Law, The Accused's Military Commander Has The Sole Authority To Decide Whether He Or She Will Face Sexual Assault Charges. According to Mother Jones, "Under the military justice system, if a service member is assaulted, the commander of the alleged perpetrator has the final say over whether charges should be brought. Commanding officers are also allowed to overturn sexual assault convictions. Top military brass say that commanders need this kind of prosecutorial discretion to maintain order and discipline within the ranks." [Mother Jones, 11/20/13]
Underlying Bill Included Mandatory Minimum Sentences For Military Personnel Convicted Of Sexual Assault, Required Dismissal Of Some Military Personnel Convicted Of Rape And Stripped Commanders Of The Power To Overturn Sexual Assault Convictions. According to Huffington Post, "The House overwhelmingly passed a sweeping, $638 billion defense bill on Friday that imposes new punishments on members of the armed services found guilty of rape or sexual assault as outrage over the crisis in the military has galvanized Congress. [...] The House bill would require a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a member of the armed services convicted of rape or sexual assault in a military court. Officers, commissioned warrant officers, cadets and midshipmen convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy or attempts to commit those offenses also would be dismissed. Enlisted personnel and noncommissioned warrant officers convicted of similar crimes would be dishonorably discharged. The bill also would strip military commanders of the power to overturn convictions in rape and sexual assault cases and eliminate the five-year statute of limitations on trial by court-martial for sexual assault and sexual assault of a child." [Huffington Post, 6/14/13]
Proposed Amendment Would Have Allowed Sexual Assault Victims To Choose Which Of Two Offices Would Have The Decision Of Whether The Case Went To Trial. According to Huffington Post, "Duckworth and several other Democratic women made a last-ditch effort to change the bill to allow a victim to choose whether the Office of Chief Prosecutor or the commander in the victim's chain of command decides whether the case would go to trial. They argued that the bill did not go far enough. Their effort failed, [...] but in an emotional moment on the House floor, a wheelchair-bound Duckworth received kisses, hugs and handshakes after her plea." [Huffington Post, 6/14/13]
Supporters Said Amendment Provided Options For Victims In Cases Where They Fear A Failure In The Chain Of Command. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said, "This amendment adds a new course of action for victims to pursue should they choose it. It empowers them at a time when they feel most powerless with a new option that is outside the chain of command with an independent investigation and prosecution system. I place the highest priority on the importance of a commander's authority to lead and discipline the men and women under his or her command. However, in the case of sexual crimes, there continues to be failures in the existing processes for investigations and punishments within that chain. That is why we must empower victims with an additional choice so that they can seek justice. There are many, many good commanders. My own experience has been a positive one with all of my commanders, all of whom were men, being protective of all of their soldiers and doing the right thing. Yet the data shows that there are enough predators and failed commanders that we need to take care of this now. This solution supports command authority but also, importantly, empowers victims by giving them one more option." [Congressional Record, 6/14/13]
Opponents Of Removing Decision To Prosecute From Commanders Said They Should Be Trusted To Handle Sexual Assault Investigations In Their Units. According to the Military Times, "Sen. Lindsey Graham opposes a proposal to have military prosecutors rather than commanders decide which cases of alleged sexual assault in the armed forces should be pursued. [. . .] Graham, R-S.C., is on the side that believes commanders should be trusted to handle sexual assault investigations in their units. 'I cannot stress to my colleagues enough how ill-conceived that system would be from a military justice point of view, and the damage that will be done to the command and to the fighting force if we go down this road,' Graham, an Air Force reservist, said on the Senate floor last week." According to his Senate website, Graham also served a member of the Judge Advocate General's Office while on active duty in the Air Force, and is currently a senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School. [Military Times, 11/27/13; Biography, Senator Graham's website, Viewed 12/9/13]
Opponents Said Sexual Assault Provisions In The Underlying Bill Reflected A Compromise Among Both Parties And Should Not Be Changed. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) said, "Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, we worked for months on bipartisan legislation to confront this problem. The time for this Congress to act on this issue is right now. I ask you to support the bipartisan solution in this bill, reject the procedural motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time." [Congressional Record, 6/14/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For Defense Health Program Treatment Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder By $5 Million. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment to the FY 2015 Defense Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would increase by $5 million the amount provided for Defense-wide operations and maintenance, intended for sexual assault prevention. It would increase by $10 million the amount provided for the Defense Health Program, of which $5 million would be intended for electronic health records at the Department of Veterans Affairs and $5 million for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It would decrease by $15 million the amount provided for research, development, test and evaluation." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 220. [House Vote 337, 6/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4870]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For Military Sexual Assault Prevention By $5 Million. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment to the FY 2015 Defense Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would increase by $5 million the amount provided for Defense-wide operations and maintenance, intended for sexual assault prevention. It would increase by $10 million the amount provided for the Defense Health Program, of which $5 million would be intended for electronic health records at the Department of Veterans Affairs and $5 million for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It would decrease by $15 million the amount provided for research, development, test and evaluation." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 220. [House Vote 337, 6/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4870]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Moving Prosecutions For Military Sexual Harassment Outside The Chain Of Command, Like Sexual Assault Cases. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "move military sexual harassment prosecutions outside the chain of command, similar to the treatment of sexual assault cases." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 329-101, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. The FY 2023 Defense Authorization was passed with H.R. 7776. [House Vote 350, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]