2015: Schweikert Voted To Cut An FY 2016 Interior And Environment Appropriations Bill By 1 Percent. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] all funding in the bill by 1 percent." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 Interior and environment appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 168 to 258. [House Vote 407, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 589; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Cut An FY 2016 Transportation And HUD Appropriations Bill By 1 Percent. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] spending by 1 percent to all accounts in the bill." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 Transportation and HUD appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 163 to 259. [House Vote 310, 6/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/9/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 397; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Cut An FY 2016 Energy And Water Appropriations Bill By 11 Percent, Except For Certain Nuclear Security Related Faculties. In April 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] funds in the bill by 11 percent across the board, except for those designated for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Environmental and Other Defense Activities or Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 Energy and water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 143 to 278. [House Vote 205, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 188; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2771]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Set Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Authority At $493.5 Billion. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which set non-defense discretionary spending authority at $493.5 Billon and called for cuts in future years. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes[d] a $493.5 billion cap on discretionary spending for non-defense programs in FY 2016 --- equal to the post-sequester level set for non-defense programs pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA). The FY 2016 level is $1.1 billion more than comparable FY 2015 funding. However, unlike for defense, the budget assumes that the sequester-reduced caps for non-defense spending will be further reduced for future years. Specifically, it assumes that future non-defense caps would be cut by a total of $759 billion over 10 years --- which would result in net deficit reduction of $372 billion after accounting for the $387 billion increase for defense caps." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Set Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Authority At $493.5 Billion. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which set non-defense discretionary spending authority at $493.5 Billon and called for cuts in future years. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes[d] a $493.5 billion cap on discretionary spending for non-defense programs in FY 2016 --- equal to the post-sequester level set for non-defense programs pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA). The FY 2016 level is $1.1 billion more than comparable FY 2015 funding. However, unlike for defense, the budget assumes that the sequester-reduced caps for non-defense spending will be further reduced for future years. Specifically, it assumes that future non-defense caps would be cut by a total of $759 billion over 10 years --- which would result in net deficit reduction of $372 billion after accounting for the $387 billion increase for defense caps." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Shut Down The Federal Government By Passing A 10-Week Continuing Resolution That Did Not Defund Planned Parenthood. In September 2015, Schweikert voted against a 10-week continuing resolution that included funding for Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would continue funding the government through Dec. 11, 2015 at an annualized rate of $1,017 trillion, the top-line post-sequester discretionary spending level for FY 2016 set by the Budget Control Act. It also would fund for Overseas Contingency Operations at a rate of $74.8 billion, roughly equal to the FY 2015 level. Under the bill, most programs would be funded at a rate that is 0.21 percent less than their FY 2015 funding level, although the measure would include increases for certain activities including $700 million in emergency funding for fighting fire in western states; it would give the VA budget flexibility in constructing a facility in Denver, and would not defund Planned Parenthood. Further, the measure would extend through Dec. 11 the ban on state taxation of Internet access and the E-Verify employment verification system." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House accepted the motion by a vote of 277 to 151. The president signed the legislation into law. [House Vote 528, 9/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 719]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring A Proposed Report From The Treasury Secretary To Congress On The Debt Limit To Include The Economic Consequences Of Delaying Or The Threatening Of A Default. In February 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Treasury secretary's statement of intent to include an explanation of how delayed action on raising the debt limit and the threat of default would impact the economy." The underlying measure, according to The Hill, would have required the "Treasury Secretary [...] to appear before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to give a report before the government's debt ceiling needs to be raised." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 227. [House Vote 74, 2/11/16; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/16; The Hill, 2/11/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 941; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3442]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring A Proposed Report From The Treasury Secretary To Congress On The Debt Limit To Include The Economic Consequences Of Not Raising The Debt Limit. In February 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[ed] the Treasury secretary's debt report to include an economic forecast of the negative consequences of not raising the debt limit, including costs associated with public health and safety." The underlying measure, according to The Hill, would have required the "Treasury Secretary [...] to appear before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to give a report before the government's debt ceiling needs to be raised." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 184 to 234. [House Vote 71, 2/11/16; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/16; The Hill, 2/11/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 937; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3442]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing A Default On The Nation's Debt By Suspending The Debt Ceiling Until March 15, 2017 As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against preventing a default on the nation's debt. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "suspend[ed] the debt limit until March 15, 2017." The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also "increase[d] the discretionary spending cap for fiscal 2016 by $50 billion and for fiscal 2017 by $30 billion, with the increases split equally between defense and non-defense spending" among other provisions. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]
Treasury Department Indicated That The Nation Would Default On November 3, 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Treasury Department since then has used so-called 'extraordinary measures' to continue to borrow and pay U.S. debts, but the department has said that it would exhaust its ability to borrow and fully finance government operations no later than Nov. 3." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
PolitiFact: Measure Does Not Give President Obama The Ability to Borrow Unlimited Amounts Of Money. According to Politifact, "A bipartisan, bicameral deal to stave off a possible government shutdown and a breaching of the federal debt limit is now on its way to President Barack Obama's desk. [...] One of the critics at the debate was Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. 'Now, on the floor of the Congress, the Washington establishment from both parties puts forward a bill that will explode the deficit,' Paul said. 'It allows President Obama to borrow unlimited amounts of money.' [...] The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False." [PolitiFact, 11/2/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Allow The Government To Borrow Over The Federal Debt Limit To Continue Paying Social Security Along With Payments Owed To Government Debt Holders. According to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have according to Congressional Quarterly, "direct[ed] the Treasury Department, if the debt limit is reached, to issue obligations in order to make principal and interest payments on both government debt held by the public and on obligations from the Social Security trust fund. The measure would bar use of obligations to pay compensation for members of Congress." The vote was on the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 194. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 557, 10/21/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/21/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 692]
A Related Bill's Supporters, Primarily Republicans, Claimed The Bill Would Remove Threat Of Government Default While Necessary Changes Were Made To Reduce Future Spending. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, say it will remove the threat of a government default and preserve the full faith and credit of the government by ensuring that the government's public debt obligations are paid. They say major credit rating agencies Moody's and Standard and Poor's have indicated that they distinguish between a failure to make a public debt payment and a payment on another government obligations, so allowing Treasury to continue borrowing to roll over current government bonds and pay interest on those bonds will make it clear to Wall Street and the world that no U.S. default will occur. Moreover, it also ensures that Social Security benefits will continue to be paid in full. [...] They argue that the government is living beyond its means, and that fundamental changes must be enacted to reduce future spending before the debt limit is raised further." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/3/13]
A Related Bill's Opponents Said The Bill Showed That GOP Planned To Default, Seriously Damaging The U.S. Economy, While Attempting To Ensure That Foreign Bondholders Still Got Paid. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats and other opponents argue that the bill signals GOP plans to default on the full faith and credit of the United States, which could cause serious and lasting damage to the economy. They say Republicans make a false distinction as to what constitutes default, arguing that the market will consider the government to have defaulted whether it misses a payment on a Treasury bond or on a major government contract --- which could roil the markets, including by driving up interest rates on U.S. bonds and making it difficult to roll over existing debt. In 2011, they note, the market plunged and the government's credit rating was cut even though Congress enacted an increase in the debt limit that prevented any type of default. Opponents also argue it would be impossible to prioritize government payments of other federal obligations outside of bond payments. Treasury's system is designed to pay the 80 to 100 million bills it receives each month in the order they are received. If anything, they say the bill effectively prioritizes paying off Chinese and other foreign bondholders before paying the salaries of U.S. troops and the pensions and benefits of veterans. At the very least, because those non-bond payments could not be prioritized and would continue to be paid on a first-come basis as revenues become available, payments to the military, veterans and other high priorities would be severely delayed." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/3/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution, Which Provided $493.5 Billion In Non-Discretionary Spending, Reflecting Post-Sequester Caps. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution, which according to the Congressional Quarterly, "would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next 10 years. [...] The budget resolution reflects the current post-sequester caps on discretionary spending - $523 billion for defense and $493.5 billion for non-defense programs in fiscal 2016. Raising the caps would require a change in law." The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/27/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
Budget Would Reduce Spending By $5.3 Trillion Over Ten Years; Raises No Taxes. According to the New York Times, "The Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the first joint congressional budget plan in six years, ratifying a 10-year blueprint that would cut spending by $5.3 trillion, overhaul programs for the poor, repeal President Obama's health care law and ostensibly produce a balanced budget in less than a decade. [...] Democrats called attention to the cost reductions required to get to a balanced budget without raising taxes." [The New York Times, 5/5/15]
Budget Keeps In Place Across The Board Spending Cuts, But Adds $90 Billion To Supplemental War Funding Not Subject To Spending Curbs. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The budget resolution kept in place across-the-board curbs known as the sequester while adding nearly $90 billion to a supplemental war fund that isn't subject to the curbs." [Wall Street Journal, 5/5/15]
Budget Would Cut $4.2 Trillion "In [...] Benefit Programs Like Medicare, Medicaid And Food Stamps Over 10 Years." According to the New York Times, "the budget calls for $4.2 trillion in cuts to benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps over 10 years. Domestic programs at Congress's annual discretion would be cut by $496 billion below the already tight limits imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011." [The New York Times, 5/5/15]
New York Times: Budget Also Cuts Pell Grants And Income Security Programs Like School Lunches, Food Stumps, Tax Credits for Working Poor And Nutrition Assistance To Poor Mothers. According to the New York Times, "Democrats called attention to the cost reductions required to get to a balanced budget without raising taxes. They include cutting Pell Grant scholarships, either by capping the number of recipients or the benefit amount for each recipient; cutting off health insurance to as many as 27 million people covered by either the president's health care law or Medicaid; and slicing $600 billion from 'income security' programs like school lunches, food stamps, tax credits for the working poor and nutritional assistance to poor mothers." [The New York Times, 5/5/15]
Center For Budget And Policy Priorities: Budget Would Eliminate Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed budget agreement that the Senate will consider next week would repeal health reform and cut Medicaid over the coming decade by roughly half a trillion dollars on top, making tens of millions more Americans uninsured." [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/1/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Set Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Authority At $493.5 Billion. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which set non-defense discretionary spending authority at $493.5 Billon and called for cuts in future years. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, "assumes[d] a $493.5 billion cap on discretionary spending for non-defense programs in FY 2016 --- equal to the post-sequester level set for non-defense programs pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA). The FY 2016 level is $1.1 billion more than comparable FY 2015 funding. However, unlike for defense, the budget assumes that the sequester-reduced caps for non-defense spending will be further reduced for future years. Specifically, it assumes that future non-defense caps would be cut by a total of $759 billion over 10 years --- which would result in net deficit reduction of $372 billion after accounting for the $387 billion increase for defense caps." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Funding The Government In FY 2016 As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against The FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $1.15 trillion in discretionary appropriations through Sept. 30, 2016 for federal departments and agencies covered by the fiscal 2016 spending bills." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Spending Caps For FY 2016 And FY 2017 As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against increasing defense spending caps for FY 2016 and FY 2017 as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement increases the discretionary spending caps for FY 2016 and FY 2017 to partially restore spending cuts that would otherwise be made those two years under the sequester required by the Budget Control Act (BCA). That sequester was triggered by the failure of Congress in late 2011 to identify and enact $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Under the current stopgap funding law, discretionary spending is running at an annualized rate of about $1.017 trillion, the top-line, sequester-reduced rate for FY 2016. The measure rolls back part of the sequester for both FY 2016 and FY 2017 to restore nearly $80 billion in spending authority for those two years --- $50 billion in FY 2016 and $30 billion in FY 2017 --- split evenly between defense and non-defense programs each year. That would raise the basic caps on discretionary spending to $1.067 trillion for FY 2016 and $1.070 trillion for FY 2017." The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also "suspend[ed] the debt limit until March 15, 2017" among other provisions. The vote was on a motion to concur with the Senate amendment with an amendment. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]