2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution, Which In Part Repealed A 2007 Democratic Rule That Prohibited Reconciliation From Increasing The Deficit At All. 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]
In 2007, Democrats Changed Reconciliation Rules To Prohibit The Procedure From Increasing The Deficit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "While reconciliation has traditionally been thought of as mostly a means of enacting deficit-reduction legislation, Congress has used it on occasion to expedite passage of tax cuts that increase deficits. The most notable examples were reconciliation bills in 2001 and 2003 that enacted tax cuts based on proposals by President George W. Bush.[5] In 2007, when Democrats took control of the House and Senate, both chambers adopted rules designed to prohibit use of reconciliation for measures that increase deficits." [CBPP, 11/9/16]
This Legislation Repealed That Rule. According to CBPP, "In 2007, when Democrats took control of the House and Senate, both chambers adopted rules designed to prohibit use of reconciliation for measures that increase deficits. When Republicans took the House in 2011, they replaced the House rule with one that placed no restrictions on revenue provisions that increase deficits but prohibited reconciliation instructions that would produce a net increase in mandatory spending, regardless of the reconciliation bill's overall impact on deficits. The Senate rule against deficit-increasing reconciliation bills was repealed in 2015, as part of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016." [CBPP, 11/9/16]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing Members Of Congress To Vote Remotely During The COVID-19 Pandemic. In May 2020, Schweikert voted against a remote voting bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish procedures authorizing remote voting by proxy for House members and remote committee proceedings during the COVID-19 public health emergency. It would allow members of the House to serve as a proxy for up to ten members for any given vote. It would require members to designate such proxies through a letter submitted to the clerk and provide proxies with exact instructions with respect to each vote. It would require that any member whose vote is cast or whose presence is recorded by proxy count toward a quorum, and it would require the clerk to make available a full list of proxy designations during any vote. It would authorize House committees to conduct official, public proceedings remotely and authorize committee members to participate remotely during in-person committee proceedings, including voting and being counted toward a quorum. It would authorize witnesses to appear and committees to issue subpoenas for witnesses to appear at remote hearings and depositions." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-189. [House Vote 107, 5/15/20; Congressional Quarterly, 5/15/20; Congressional Actions, H.Res.965]
The Bill Allowed House Members To Vote By Proxy For 45 Days And Hold Remote Committee Meetings. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The coronavirus pandemic has prompted the House to allow lawmakers to vote by proxy, without physical presence at the Capitol. The significant, yet temporary, change to operations was not enacted during any other national crisis in history. The House voted 217-189 Friday to approve a package of historic changes to the chamber rules to allow Congress to continue much of its business through the pandemic that has made gathering together and travel threats to public health [...] Under the new rules, lawmakers will be able to join millions of Americans in working from home if they are unable to travel to Capitol Hill to participate in House business [...] Proxy voting and remote committee business would only be allowed for a 45 day period, but it could be renewed. The authority to enact a period of proxy voting ends at the close of the 116th Congress." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/15/20]
Congressional Quarterly: Republicans Opposed The Bill, Stating Concerns That The New Rule Is Unprecedented And Would "Erode The Institution" Of Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Debate over the changes has been fiery, as Republicans want to follow the lead of the president and GOP-led Senate and resume regular business. Democrats say that short term reliance on technology will provide a safe way to work as the pandemic drags on. But Republicans objected to what they called a power grab by the Democratic majority during the crisis [...] Republicans [are concerned] that remote governing would set a precedent that they said would erode the institution" [Congressional Quarterly, 5/15/20]
Other Congressional Scholars Held Concerns That The New Proceedings Could Change Take Away From The In-Person Deal Making That Is Central To Congress. According to the New York Times, "But beyond the partisan considerations, a broad cross-section of congressional scholars, parliamentary experts and former officials warn that the decision could have unintended and long-lasting consequences, altering the course of the body in fundamental ways that few rules changes in the last two centuries have [...] The more nagging questions, even to those who support the changes, have to do with what happens next. What will become of the in-person, back slapping, ear-whispering, wheeling and dealing that powers the Congress? [New York Times, 5/15/20]