2024: Schweikert Voted For The 2024 Border Security Package. In April 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would require the Department of Homeland Security to take a number of actions to limit illegal immigration into the United States, including by resuming construction of the "border wall" along the southwestern border, bolstering Customs and Border Protection, reopening border detention facilities, and limiting asylum applications and eligibility. The bill would not mandate the use of an E-Verify system for employers to confirm workers' immigration status and eligibility to work in the U.S. It would provide $9.5 billion in grants to border states for physical barriers and to reimburse law enforcement agencies or the National Guard for immigration enforcement expenses." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 215 to 199. [House Vote 143, 4/20/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/20/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3602]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Condemn The Biden-Harris Administration For "Failing To Secure The Border." In July 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "the resolution, as amended, that would state that the House of Representatives strongly condemns the Biden administration and Vice President Kamala Harris for failing to secure the U.S. border. It states that the continuation of the administration's border policies would harm the American people." The vote was on adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 220 to 196. [House Vote 400, 7/25/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1371]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Condemn The Biden-Harris Administration's Border Policies. In July 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1376) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 1371) condemning the Biden Administration and Kamala Harris's failure to secure the U.S. border. The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on the measure. It would provide for the automatic adoption of the Roy, R-Texas, amendment making various changes to the resolution's preamble." The vote was on adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 210 to 202. [House Vote 392, 7/24/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1376; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1371]
2024: Schweikert Voted Against Removing References To Biden In Legislation Regarding The Impact Of The Border On Law Enforcement. In May 2024, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 6 that would strike a provision in the congressional findings section that states 'The southwest border crisis created by the Biden Administration has made every state a border state.' It also would strike each instance of 'Biden' from the bill." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 197 to 213. [House Vote 214, 5/16/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/16/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 916; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8146]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Condemn The Biden Administration's Border Policies And The "Tremendous Burdens" The Policies Placed On Law Enforcement. In May 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the resolution that would condemn "the open border crisis that President Joe Biden, 'Border Czar' Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and other Biden administration officials have willingly created along the southwest border,' and 'the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers face as a result.' It would stipulate that 'United States law enforcement officers are bravely facing dangers and challenges every day that are exacerbated by the unprecedented crisis at the border, which affects the entire country,' and 'recognizes and sympathizes with law enforcement officers in the United States who have suffered through the mental, physical, and psychological stress associated with the lack of support, trust, and respect they face in our country today.' It would urge the Biden administration, and state and local elected officials 'to encourage and support dedicated law enforcement officers so those officers can protect the homeland, their cities, counties, or states, and restore law and order.'" The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 223 to 185. [House Vote 202, 5/15/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/15/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1210]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Denounce The Biden Administration's Border Policies. In May 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the resolution that would affirm that President Joe Biden's executive actions have created the ongoing 'border crisis,' including by abusing migrant parole authority and stopping the Trump administration's southwest 'border wall' construction, and denounce the Biden administration's 'open-border policies.'" The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 223 to 191. [House Vote 176, 5/1/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1112]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Denounce The Biden Administration's Immigration Policies. In April 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the rule (H Res 1137) that would provide for floor consideration of [...] the resolution (H Res 1112) denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies [...]. The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on HR 529, H Res 1112, H Res 1117 and HR 7888." The vote was on the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 213 to 208. [House Vote 113, 4/12/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/12/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1112; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1137]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Denounce The Biden Administration's Immigration Policies. In March 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the resolution that would denounce the Biden administration's immigration policies and affirm that the administration has the authority to end 'catch-and-release,'reinstate migrant protection protocols and detain inadmissible migrants, among other authorities. It also would affirm that the administration is refusing to use such authorities." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 226 to 193. [House Vote 85, 3/12/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/12/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1065]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove The Biden Administration's Border Policies. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for "agreeing to the resolution that would denounce the Biden administration's 'open-border policies' and condemn the crisis that the administration has 'created along the southwest border.' The vote was on adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 225 to 187. [House Vote 13, 1/17/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 957]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove The Biden Administration's Border Policies. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 969) that would provide for floor consideration of the resolution (H Res 957) to denounce the Biden Administration's border policies. [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on [the] bill." The vote was on adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 198 to 194. [House Vote 11, 1/17/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 969; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 957]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Appropriate $1.6 Billion In Funding For A Border Wall On The Southern Border As Part Of An FY 18 'Minibus' Appropriations Bill. In July 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] $788 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2018 to various departments, agencies and legislative operations, including $658.1 billion in funding for Defense programs; $88.8 billion in net appropriations subject to discretionary caps for fiscal 2018 that would provide funding for military construction activities and for VA programs and activities; $37.6 billion in net appropriations subject to discretionary caps for fiscal 2018 that would provide funding for the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and related agencies; and $3.6 billion in funding fiscal 2018 for operations of the House of Representatives, joint House-Senate items and legislative branch entities such as the Library of Congress, the Capitol Police, and the Government Accountability Office. The bill would [have] provide[d] $1.6 billion in funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for procurement, construction and improvement of a barrier along the southern U.S. border." The vote was on the bill. The House adopted the bill by a vote of 235 to 192. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 435, 7/27/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/27/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219]
2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Appropriate $1.6 Billion In Funding For A Border Wall On The Southern Border. In July 2017, Schweikert voted for a House Rule that in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "automatically modif[ied] the fiscal 2018 minibus to include an amendment that would provide $1.6 billion in funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for procurement, construction and improvement of a barrier along the southern U.S. border." The overall rule, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for further House floor consideration of the bill that would make certain appropriations for fiscal 2018 (HR 3219), would [have] provide[d] for consideration of amendments to the Defense division of the bill; and would [have] provide[d] for consideration of motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of July 28, 2017." The vote was on the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 230 to 196. The House later passed the 'minibus' spending bill. [House Vote 427, 7/27/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/27/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 478]
2025: Schweikert Voted To Establish Penalties For Evasion Of Border Patrol While Operating A Motor Vehicle. In February 2025, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would establish penalties for an individual who commits a criminal offense by operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border while intentionally avoiding a U.S. Border Patrol agent or any federal, state or local enforcement officer who is assisting U.S. Border Patrol. Penalties would include a maximum two-year imprisonment term or monetary fines or both. The imprisonment term would increase in the case of serious bodily injury or death, including a mandatory minimum sentence. It would direct the attorney general, in conjunction with the secretary of Homeland Security, to submit an annual report to the congressional judiciary committees on the number of people charged under the bill as well as those apprehended but not charged and those who committed a violation but were not apprehended along with the penalties sought and imposed for each violation." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 264 to 155. [House Vote 42, 2/13/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/13/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 35]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Establish Criminal Penalties For Evading Border Patrol With A Motor Vehicle Within 100 Miles Of The U.S. Border. In January 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill, as amended, that would establish penalties for an individual who commits a criminal offense by operating a motor vehicle within 100 miles of the U.S. border while intentionally avoiding a U.S. Border Patrol agent or any federal, state or local enforcement officer who is assisting U.S. Border Patrol. Penalties would include a maximum two-year imprisonment term or monetary fines or both. The imprisonment term would increase in the case of serious bodily injury or death, including a mandatory minimum sentence. The bill would direct the attorney general to submit an annual report on violations and penalties imposed under the bill's provisions to the congressional judiciary committees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 271 to 154. [House Vote 25, 1/30/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5585]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Apply Criminal Penalties For Fleeing U.S. Border Patrol To Individuals Fleeing Other Law Enforcement Actively Assisting Border Patrol. In January 2024, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 1 that would remove language that would apply the criminal penalties in the bill to individuals fleeing from federal, state or local law enforcement officers who are 'actively assisting' U.S. Border Patrol." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 201 to 224. [House Vote 24, 1/30/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 842; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5585]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Allow Customs And Border Patrol To Reorganize Customs Revenue Functions. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended, that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to give U.S. Customs and Border Protection the authority to consolidate, modify or reorganize customs revenue functions. It would allow the CBP commissioner to add revenue functions to existing positions as well as establish new positions for that function." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 403 to 9, thus it was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 12, 1/17/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5862]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Extend The Limits Of U.S. Customs Waters. In April 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would codify two presidential proclamations that expand the area, known as 'customs waters,' within which U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine Operations officers could operate off U.S. coasts, from 12 to 24 nautical miles, and bring the operations of CBP's Air and Marine Operations division into line with those of other law enforcement agencies." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 402 to 6. [House Vote 155, 4/30/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 529]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Extend The Limits Of U.S. Customs Waters. In April 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the rule (H Res 1137) that would provide for floor consideration of the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act (HR 529) [...]. The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on HR 529, H Res 1112, H Res 1117 and HR 7888." The vote was on the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 213 to 208. [House Vote 113, 4/12/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/12/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 529; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1137]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $42.4 Billion For Border Security, $620 Million More Than FY 2019 But $2 Billion Less Than Requested. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill appropriates a total of $42.4 billion in net discretionary funding for border security (combined Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding), $620 million (1.5%) more than FY 2019 but $2.0 billion less than requested. An additional $3.0 billion in spending for those agencies would be available through the collection of various fees. It provides a total of $14.9 billion for Customs and Border Protection ($44 million more than FY 2019 but $3.3 billion less than requested) and a total of $8.1 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement ($492 million, or 6%, more than FY 2019, but $701 million less than requested) [...] The total includes $4.4 billion for immigration enforcement and removal activities, $155 million (4%) more than FY 2019. Within that total, $3.1 billion is for ICE's custody operations, $28 million (1%) less than FY 2019. According to Senate appropriators, that funding would provide for 45,274 detention beds, equal to the FY 2019 level but 8,726 less than the president's request." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 280-138. The Senate then passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 690, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1158]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including An Increase, With Limitations, On ICE And CBP Funding. In March 2018, Schweikert voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Require The Justice Department To Submit A Report On The Impact The Increase Of Migrants Has Had On Law Enforcement To Congress. In May 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill, as amended, that would require the Justice Department to submit to Congress, within 180 days of the bill's enactment, a report on the impact of the increase of migrants at the U.S. southern border on law enforcement. The bill would require the report to detail the impact of such activity on law enforcement officers on the federal, state, local and tribal level. Among other things, the report also must include the estimated dollar amount of all resources devoted to addressing the increase of migrants at the southern border and the extent that those resources are not available to law enforcement agencies and any potential injuries to law enforcement officers related to the increase of migrants at the southern border or exposure to fentanyl." The House passed the bill by a vote of 254 to 157. [House Vote 215, 5/16/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/16/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8146]
2023: Schweikert Voted For The Secure The Border Act, Which Was A GOP Border Security Package That Sought To Continue Construction Of The Border Wall, Enhance Customs And Border Protection, Reopen Border Detention Facilities, Limiting Asylum, And Establish A Mandatory E-Verification System. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Secure The Border Act, which would "require the Homeland Security Department to take a number of actions to limit illegal immigration into the United States, including by resuming construction of the 'border wall' along the southwestern border, bolstering Customs and Border Protection, reopening border detention facilities, limiting asylum applications and eligibility, and establishing a mandatory employment verification system." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 213, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 209, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
The Bill Sought To Prevent Immigrants And Illegal Drugs From Crossing The Southwestern Border. According to Reuters, "The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved Republican legislation intended to stop immigrants and illegal drugs crossing the nation's southwestern border with Mexico, leaving it to the Senate to attempt a broader, bipartisan immigration bill." [Reuters, 5/12/23]
The Bill Would Establish Strict Limits On Asylum Seekers, Require Asylum Seekers To Apply For U.S. Protection Outside Of The Country, And Continue Construction Of The Border Wall And Expand Federal Law Enforcement Efforts. According to Reuters, "The package, which Democrats have warned will be blocked in the Senate, would set tight limits on asylum seekers and require them to apply for U.S. protection outside the country. It also would resume construction of a wall along the border and expand federal law enforcement efforts." [Reuters, 5/12/23]
The Bill Would Resume The Border Wall Construction, Raise Funding For Border Agents And Upgrade Border Equipment, Re-Implement The "Remain In Mexico Policy," Create New Restrictions On Asylum-Seeking, And Enhance E-Verify. According to CNN, "The bill would restart construction of a border wall, increase funding for border agents and upgraded border technology, reinstate the 'remain in Mexico' policy, place new restrictions on asylum seekers, and enhance requirements for E-verify, a database employers use to verify immigration status." [CNN, 5/11/23]
The Biden Administration Threatened To Veto The Bill, Arguing That It Did Not Address Root Causes Of Migration, Lowered Humanitarian Protections, And Restrained Lawful Pathways For Asylum While It Would Not Actually Enhance Border Security. According to CNN, "The Biden administration's veto threat against the legislation criticized the measure, saying, 'this bill would make things worse, not better.' The measure 'does nothing to address the root causes of migration, reduces humanitarian protections, and restricts lawful pathways, which are critical alternatives to unlawful entry ... because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation's core values and international obligations, it should be rejected,' the statement said." [CNN, 5/11/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Secure The Border Act, Which Was A GOP Border Security Package. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to recommit the bill to a committee." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 211 to 221, thus the House voted on passage subsequently. [House Vote 208, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Secure The Border Act, Which Was A GOP Border Security Package. 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 Secure the Border Act (HR 2) and 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. [...] As amended, the rule would also provide for automatic adoption of an amendment to HR 2 that would strike a section requiring the Homeland Security Department to submit a report to Congress on whether certain Mexican drug cartels meet the criteria to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations; instead require Congress to commission a report containing a national strategy to address Mexican drug cartels, including a determination of whether there should be a new designation for such cartels and information on actions by such cartels that harm the U.S.; and express the sense of Congress that, in implementing the E-Verify Program, DHS shall ensure any adverse impact on the U.S. agricultural workforce, operations and food security is considered and addressed." 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. 2]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Secure The Border Act, Which Was A GOP Border Security Package. 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 Secure the Border Act (HR 2) and 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." 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. 2]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring Medical Screenings For Individuals Taken Into Custody By U.S. Border Patrol. In September 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Homeland Security Department to establish uniform procedures for medical screening of individuals taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol between U.S. ports of entry. It would require that such screenings be conducted by a medical professional within 12 hours for adults and within 6 hours for minors. It would also require DHS to assess capability gaps in the provision of medical screenings, particularly for vulnerable populations." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230-184. The bill was never taken up in the Senate. [House Vote 552, 9/26/19; Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.3525]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Require A Report On A National Strategy To Address Mexican Drug Cartels, Whether To Classify Cartels, And Data On How Cartels Harm The U.S. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Secure The Border Act, which would "require Congress to commission a report that contains a national strategy to address Mexican drug cartels, including a determination of whether there should be a designation established to address such cartels." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 213, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 209, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Require A Report On A National Strategy To Address Mexican Drug Cartels, Whether To Classify Cartels, And Data On How Cartels Harm The U.S., Instead Of Mandating A Report Determining Whether Cartels Could Be Designated As Foreign Terrorist Organizations. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the rule provided by H.Res. 383, which would "strike a section that would require the Homeland Security Department to submit a report to Congress on whether certain Mexican drug cartels meet the criteria to be designated as foreign terrorist organizations. It would instead require Congress, within 60 days of enactment, to commission a report that contains a national strategy to address Mexican drug cartels; a determination of whether there should be a designation established to address such cartels; and information on actions by such cartels that harm the U.S. It would also express the sense of Congress that, in implementing the E-Verify Program, DHS shall ensure any adverse impact on the nation's agricultural workforce, operations and food security are considered and addressed." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 236 to 190. [House Vote 206, 5/10/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 172]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Continue The Construction Of The Border Wall. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Secure The Border Act, which, "To enhance physical border security, the bill would require DHS to resume all previously planned border wall construction on the U.S.-Mexico border. It would require DHS to design, install and operate at least 900 total miles of physical barriers and other infrastructure and technology along the border, until the department achieves 'operational control' of the border, defined under current law as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the country." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 213, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 209, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $1.375 Billion For Continued Construction Of The Border Wall. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Measure includes $1.375 billion for continued construction of the president's wall along the U.S.-Mexican border equal to FY 2019. President Trump had requested $5.0 billion for 722 miles of new barriers." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 280-138. The Senate then passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 690, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1158]
2019: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Which Provided $1.375 Billion For The Border Wall, Much Less Than The $7.2 Billion Requested By Trump. In December 2019, Schweikert effectively voted for the FY 2020 NDAA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Congress provided only $1.375 Billion for border barriers [...] The agreement does not authorize the $7.2 billion requested by the president for Army OCO military construction funding to build the border wall, half of which ($3.6 billion) would be to back-fill accounts where funds diverted for wall construction." The vote was on adoption of the conference report to accompany the bill. The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 377-48. The bill was later passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. [House Vote 672, 12/11/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, S.1790]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Terminating The National Emergency Declared By President Donald Trump For The Construction Of A Border Wall. In September 2019, Schweikert voted against a joint resolution that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "terminate the national emergency declared by the President Donald Trump on Feb. 15, 2019, related to the construction of a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border." The vote was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of 236-174. The bill was previously passed by the Senate, but was vetoed by the President. [House Vote 553, 9/27/19; Congressional Quarterly, 9/27/19; Congressional Actions, S.J.Res.54]
2019: Schweikert Voted For Allowing The Trump Administration To Use Funds From The Treasury Forfeiture Fund To Pay For The Border Wall. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2020 minibus appropriations bill, which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill a provision that would prohibit the use of funds from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund to plan or construct a wall, barrier, fence, or road along the U.S. southern border. The fund is sourced from Treasury and Homeland Security Department forfeitures and seizures and used for related law enforcement activities." The vote was on adoption. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191-226. [House Vote 411, 6/25/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.484; Congressional Actions, H.R.3351]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Blocking President Trump's Emergency Declaration That Bypassed Congress To Build A Portion Of His Wall At The Southern Border. In March 2019, Schweikert voted against a resolution that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "terminate the president's national emergency declaration concerning the security situation at the southern border." The vote was on override the president's veto, requiring a two-thirds majority, or 286 in this case. The House rejected the resolution by a vote of 248 to 181. [House Vote 127, 3/26/19; Congressional Quarterly, 3/26/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 46]
Trump Promised To Build A Wall On The Southern Border During The 2016 Campaign And Claimed That Mexico Would Pay For It. According to the Wall Street Journal, "As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump described building the wall as a simple job. He tied it to his identity as a builder, a career that dates to the 1960s when he joined his father's real-estate company. As the author of 'The Art of the Deal,' Mr. Trump put his reputation as a negotiator on the line. [...] Yet 'build the wall' chants continue to resound at the president's public appearances. Among Mr. Trump's political base, polls show that 96% support the border wall. More broadly, a majority of Americans oppose such a barrier, the same Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found in January. During the 2016 Republican primary race, Mr. Trump called his build-the-wall campaign promise, 'My best line.' [...] The promise to build a wall "and eventually make Mexico pay for it" was written on a dry erase board in Mr. Bannon's West Wing office, competing for attention among other campaign promises. It was one of more than four dozen pledges on the white board, organized by policy area." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
December 2018: Trump Demanded Border Wall Funding In Exchange For Keeping The Government Open; The Government Was Then Shutdown For 35 Days. According to Politico, "The president will make the request in his budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, which ends just one month before the 2020 presidential election. The sum --- billions of dollars higher than the $5.7 billion demand that sparked the 35-day government shutdown --- will surely divide spending negotiators again this year, likely resulting in static funding levels for much of the rest of the government or another lapse." [Politico, 3/10/19]
January 2019: The Government Was Re-Opened For Three Weeks In Hopes Of Finding A Deal On The Border Wall; Trump Threatened To Declare A National Emergency If He Did Not Get His Wall Money. According to CNN, "President Trump said the deal the deal he's announcing will fund the government for three weeks, until Feb. 15, and a bipartisan panel will work on a border security package. Trump said he has a 'very powerful alternative' --- an apparent reference to his threats to declare a national emergency in order to fund the border wall --- but said he was 'not going to use it.' Trump thanked Americans and said he's working to ensure that the furloughed workers who missed two paychecks during the shutdown will get backpay." [CNN, 1/25/19]
President Trump Demanded $5.7 Billion For Wall Funding, But The Bill Re-opening Government For The Reminder Of FY 2019 Only Provided $1.375 Billion For New And Replacement Barriers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees. President Trump, who wanted $5.7 billion for 234 miles of new border 'wall,' has not yet decided whether he will sign the agreement, according to White House staff." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19]
February 2019: Trump Declared A National Emergency, Redirecting Appropriated Funds For His Border Wall. According to the Wall Street Journal, "resident Trump declared a national emergency Friday over border security, bypassing Congress to divert money from elsewhere in the government to pay for additional barriers along the southern border, a move likely to ignite immediate court challenges. Mr. Trump also signed a bipartisan spending bill that will keep the government funded through the fall and allocates $1.38 billion for 55 miles of border barriers---far less than the $5.7 billion the president had asked for. Unsatisfied with the amount set aside by lawmakers for barriers, Mr. Trump now plans to also draw roughly $6.7 billion from military and other sources, without the approval of Congress." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
To Pay For The Wall, Trump Would Transfer Money In Part From Military Construction. According to ABC News, "The president declared a national emergency from the White House Rose Garden Friday after signing the declaration, a move administration officials argued would free up funds appropriated by Congress for military construction to help build the wall, and allow Trump to deliver on his campaign pledge after congressional Democrats repeatedly rejected his demands. Under the terms of the declaration, the administration would have access to $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget, along with $2.5 billion from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program and $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund." [ABC News, 2/18/19]
In The 1970's, Congress Passed The National Emergencies Act, Which Put Limits On What The President Could Do On Emergencies And Gave Congress The Ability To End A Declared Emergency. According to the Wall Street Journal, "In the 1970s, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, a measure that placed limits on presidential discretion and allows Congress to terminate an emergency declaration." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Some Of The Restricted Power Meant That A President Could Only Use Others Powers That Congress Had Already Put Into Law. According to Vox, "In recent history, they've done so under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which lets presidents issue an emergency declaration but under certain constraints --- namely, Trump can only use specific powers Congress has already codified by law, and he has to say which powers he's using." [Vox, 2/15/19]
Previous National Emergency Examples Were 9/11 And Sanctions, But Not Things That Congress Declined To Fund. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Previous presidents have signed dozens of emergency declarations, including those related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and sanctions, but not for initiatives that Congress declined to fund." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Trump Claimed It Was An Emergency Because "We're Talking About An Invasion Of Our Country." According to the Wall Street Journal, "In remarks at the White House, Mr. Trump defended the actions as critical to national security. 'We're talking about an invasion of our country,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Trump Also Claimed That "I Didn't Need To Do This, But I'd Rather Do It Much Faster." According to the Wall Street Journal, "At another point, however, [Trump] suggested an emergency declaration wasn't necessary. 'I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Opponents Of The Order From Both Parties Claimed It Was Unconstitutional. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said he would support the declaration, but the move was met with opposition from other lawmakers in both parties, who called it unconstitutional or unnecessary. 'The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a joint statement. 'The Congress cannot let the President shred the Constitution.' House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) said he would support a resolution to terminate an emergency declaration and that he intends to 'pursue all other available legal options.' Republican lawmakers also were critical, saying the president's plan undermined Congress and set a dangerous precedent if future Democratic presidents sought to declare emergencies over their priorities, such as climate change." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Opponents Also Claimed That The Situation At The Border Was Not An Emergency. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Critics have also questioned Mr. Trump's assertion that border security is in crisis. The number of people apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border---a figure viewed as an indicator of illegal entries---fell to lowest total in 2017 in more than 40 years, though it then ticked up, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. At the same time, the proportion of apprehensions involving children and families has surged." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Some Republican Opponents Feared That A Democrat Could Declare A National Emergency On Things Like Climate Change Or Gun Control. According to the Huffington Post, "With his controversial decision, Trump may have opened the door to a broader use of emergency declarations. 'We should do something about the actual emergencies that plague our nation --- like climate change or health care access --- not playing politics in order to build a wasteful border wall,' Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), one of several Democratic presidential candidates, tweeted on Friday. Ilhan Omar @IlhanMN Our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change. 123K 2:53 PM - Feb 15, 2019 And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that Trump's use of emergency powers could lead to a Democratic president declaring an emergency to combat gun violence and then instituting universal background checks and banning assault weapons." [Huffington Post, 2/15/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Blocking President Trump's Emergency Declaration Bypassing Congress To Build A Portion Of His Wall At The Southern Border. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against a resolution that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "terminate the president's national emergency declaration concerning the security situation at the southern border." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 245 to 182. The legislation was later passed by the Senate, vetoed by the president, which was sustained. [House Vote 94, 2/26/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/26/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 46]
Trump Promised To Build A Wall On The Southern Border During The 2016 Campaign And Claimed That Mexico Would Pay For It. According to the Wall Street Journal, "As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump described building the wall as a simple job. He tied it to his identity as a builder, a career that dates to the 1960s when he joined his father's real-estate company. As the author of 'The Art of the Deal,' Mr. Trump put his reputation as a negotiator on the line. [...] Yet 'build the wall' chants continue to resound at the president's public appearances. Among Mr. Trump's political base, polls show that 96% support the border wall. More broadly, a majority of Americans oppose such a barrier, the same Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found in January. During the 2016 Republican primary race, Mr. Trump called his build-the-wall campaign promise, 'My best line.' [...] The promise to build a wall "and eventually make Mexico pay for it" was written on a dry erase board in Mr. Bannon's West Wing office, competing for attention among other campaign promises. It was one of more than four dozen pledges on the white board, organized by policy area." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
December 2018: Trump Demanded Border Wall Funding In Exchange For Keeping The Government Open; The Government Was Then Shutdown For 35 Days. According to Politico, "The president will make the request in his budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, which ends just one month before the 2020 presidential election. The sum --- billions of dollars higher than the $5.7 billion demand that sparked the 35-day government shutdown --- will surely divide spending negotiators again this year, likely resulting in static funding levels for much of the rest of the government or another lapse." [Politico, 3/10/19]
January 2019: The Government Was Re-Opened For Three Weeks In Hopes Of Finding A Deal On The Border Wall; Trump Threatened To Declare A National Emergency If He Did Not Get His Wall Money. According to CNN, "President Trump said the deal the deal he's announcing will fund the government for three weeks, until Feb. 15, and a bipartisan panel will work on a border security package. Trump said he has a 'very powerful alternative' --- an apparent reference to his threats to declare a national emergency in order to fund the border wall --- but said he was 'not going to use it.' Trump thanked Americans and said he's working to ensure that the furloughed workers who missed two paychecks during the shutdown will get backpay." [CNN, 1/25/19]
President Trump Demanded $5.7 Billion For Wall Funding, But The Bill Re-opening Government For The Reminder Of FY 2019 Only Provided $1.375 Billion For New And Replacement Barriers. According to Congressional Quarterly, " The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees. President Trump, who wanted $5.7 billion for 234 miles of new border 'wall,' has not yet decided whether he will sign the agreement, according to White House staff." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19]
February 2019: Trump Declared A National Emergency, Redirecting Appropriated Funds For His Border Wall. According to the Wall Street Journal, "resident Trump declared a national emergency Friday over border security, bypassing Congress to divert money from elsewhere in the government to pay for additional barriers along the southern border, a move likely to ignite immediate court challenges. Mr. Trump also signed a bipartisan spending bill that will keep the government funded through the fall and allocates $1.38 billion for 55 miles of border barriers---far less than the $5.7 billion the president had asked for. Unsatisfied with the amount set aside by lawmakers for barriers, Mr. Trump now plans to also draw roughly $6.7 billion from military and other sources, without the approval of Congress." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
To Pay For The Wall, Trump Would Transfer Money In Part From Military Construction. According to ABC News, "The president declared a national emergency from the White House Rose Garden Friday after signing the declaration, a move administration officials argued would free up funds appropriated by Congress for military construction to help build the wall, and allow Trump to deliver on his campaign pledge after congressional Democrats repeatedly rejected his demands. Under the terms of the declaration, the administration would have access to $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget, along with $2.5 billion from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program and $600 million from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund." [ABC News, 2/18/19]
In The 1970's, Congress Passed The National Emergencies Act, Which Put Limits On What The President Could Do On Emergencies And Gave Congress The Ability To End A Declared Emergency. According to the Wall Street Journal, "In the 1970s, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, a measure that placed limits on presidential discretion and allows Congress to terminate an emergency declaration." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Some Of The Restricted Power Meant That A President Could Only Use Others Powers That Congress Had Already Put Into Law. According to Vox, "In recent history, they've done so under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which lets presidents issue an emergency declaration but under certain constraints --- namely, Trump can only use specific powers Congress has already codified by law, and he has to say which powers he's using." [Vox, 2/15/19]
Previous National Emergency Examples Were 9/11 And Sanctions, But Not Things That Congress Declined To Fund. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Previous presidents have signed dozens of emergency declarations, including those related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and sanctions, but not for initiatives that Congress declined to fund." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Trump Claimed It Was An Emergency Because "We're Talking About An Invasion Of Our Country." According to the Wall Street Journal, "In remarks at the White House, Mr. Trump defended the actions as critical to national security. 'We're talking about an invasion of our country,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Trump Also Claimed That "I Didn't Need To Do This, But I'd Rather Do It Much Faster." According to the Wall Street Journal, "At another point, however, [Trump] suggested an emergency declaration wasn't necessary. 'I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster,' he said." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Opponents Of The Order From Both Parties Claimed It Was Unconstitutional. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said he would support the declaration, but the move was met with opposition from other lawmakers in both parties, who called it unconstitutional or unnecessary. 'The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a joint statement. 'The Congress cannot let the President shred the Constitution.' House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) said he would support a resolution to terminate an emergency declaration and that he intends to 'pursue all other available legal options.' Republican lawmakers also were critical, saying the president's plan undermined Congress and set a dangerous precedent if future Democratic presidents sought to declare emergencies over their priorities, such as climate change." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Opponents Also Claimed That The Situation At The Border Was Not An Emergency. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Critics have also questioned Mr. Trump's assertion that border security is in crisis. The number of people apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border---a figure viewed as an indicator of illegal entries---fell to lowest total in 2017 in more than 40 years, though it then ticked up, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. At the same time, the proportion of apprehensions involving children and families has surged." [Wall Street Journal, 2/15/19]
Some Republican Opponents Feared That A Democrat Could Declare A National Emergency On Things Like Climate Change Or Gun Control. According to the Huffington Post, "With his controversial decision, Trump may have opened the door to a broader use of emergency declarations. 'We should do something about the actual emergencies that plague our nation --- like climate change or health care access --- not playing politics in order to build a wasteful border wall,' Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), one of several Democratic presidential candidates, tweeted on Friday. Ilhan Omar @IlhanMN Our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change. 123K 2:53 PM - Feb 15, 2019 And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that Trump's use of emergency powers could lead to a Democratic president declaring an emergency to combat gun violence and then instituting universal background checks and banning assault weapons." [Huffington Post, 2/15/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing Another Government Shutdown And Providing $1.375 Billion For New And Replacement Barriers, But Not The Full $5.7 Billion For The Wall. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2019 consolidated appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This Conference Summary describes the agreement on H J Res 31, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, which provides detailed, full-year funding for all seven remaining FY 2019 spending bills ---thereby completing the FY 2019 appropriations process. The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 300 to 128. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 87, 2/14/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 31]
The Government Had Been Shutdown For Weeks Over Border Wall Funding; This Bill Prevented Another. According to Politico, "Three weeks after the longest shutdown in U.S. history, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to fund roughly one-quarter of the federal government through Sept. 30, while providing only a fraction of the funds for a border barrier that Trump demanded." [Politico, 2/14/19]
President Trump Demanded $5.7 Billion For Wall Funding, But The Bill Only Provided $1.375 Billion For New And Replacement Barriers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees. President Trump, who wanted $5.7 billion for 234 miles of new border 'wall,' has not yet decided whether he will sign the agreement, according to White House staff." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19]
After Signing The Bill, Trump Signed An Emergency Declaration Bypassing Congress To Fund The Wall. According to the Washington Post, "President Trump on Friday declared the situation on the southern border of the United States to be a national emergency, catapulting the country into uncertain legal and political battles as he seeks to fulfill a campaign promise that eluded him for two years. He made the designation in an attempt to redirect taxpayer money from other accounts and use it to erect more than 230 miles of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump anticipates a flurry of legal challenges that will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court." [Washington Post, 2/15/19]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Prevent A Government Shutdown Over Trump's Wall; Bill Would Have Appropriated $5.7 Billion For The Wall. In December 2018, Schweikert voted for a continuing resolution funding a significant portion of government through February 8, 2019 as well as allocating $5.7 billion for President Trump's border wall. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill is the legislative vehicle for a short-term continuing resolution that would fund the government through Feb. 8, 2019. It would also authorize $5.7 billion for construction of a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as an estimated $7.8 billion in emergency disaster relief funding." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill, with a further House amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 217 to 185. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 472, 12/20/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/20/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 695]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The So-Called Compromise GOP Immigration Will That Provided $23.4 Billion In Border Security Funding -- Including For A "Wall System"-, Provided A Pathway To Citizenship For DACA Recipients, And Increased Asylum Requirements For Those Seeking It. In June 2018, Schweikert voted against the "compromise" immigration proposal between Republican conservatives and moderates. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would appropriate $23.4 billion for various border security activities. Included would be $16.6 billion for a 'border wall system,' which would be available from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2027, and $6.8 billion for border security investments, which would be available from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023. It would provide those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status a six-year renewable contingent non-immigrant legal status and would allow them to apply for a green card after five years, providing a path to citizenship. It would modify legal immigration by ending the diversity visa program and reallocating those visas to other classifications. The bill would require that undocumented immigrants who are charged with a misdemeanor offense for improper entry into the United States be detained with their minor children." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 121 to 301. [House Vote 297, 6/27/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/27/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6136]
2018: Schweikert Voted For A Republican Immigration Reform Measure Which Provided $9.3 Billion In Wall Funding, A Three-Year Renewable Temporary Status For DACA Recipients, And Reduced Overall Legal Immigration By Ending The Diversity Visa Program And Restricting Family-Based Immigration. In June 2018, Schweikert voted for a conservative immigration reform bill. Acceding to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would authorize $24.8 billion for fiscal 2018 through fiscal 2022 for various border security activities, including $9.3 billion for a border wall and other physical barriers and would provide individuals registered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a three-year, renewable contingent non-immigrant legal status but with no special path to citizenship. It would modify legal immigration by ending the diversity visa program and restricting most family-based immigration to allow only spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents to receive green cards. It would increase enforcement of immigration laws within the United States, including by requiring all employers to verify the immigration status and eligibility of individuals seeking jobs in the United States." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 193 to 231. [House Vote 282, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4760]
2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted For Funding For Trump's Border Wall With Funding Instead Of Going To FEMA. In September 2017, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Predisaster Mitigation Fund by $2.4 billion, would [have] eliminate[d] $1.6 billion in funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for procurement, construction and improvement of a barrier along the southern U.S. border, and would [have] decrease[d] funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations by $849.5 million." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 omnibus. The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 186 to 223. The House later passed the underlying legislation. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 527, 9/14/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/14/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Preventing Funding For The Wall In An FY 18 Defense Authorization. In July 2017, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds authorized by the bill from being used to plan, develop, or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along 'the international border of the United States.'" The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 defense authorization. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 235. [House Vote 377, 7/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2810]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against The May 2017 FY 2017 Omnibus Appropriations Bill That Provided No Funding For Donald Trump's Border Wall. In May 2017, Schweikert voted against the FY 2017 omnibus appropriations bill that would keep much of the government open and would have provided $1.16 trillion in discretionary spending. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bipartisan measure contains full, detailed bills for the remaining 11 annual spending measures for the duration of FY 2017, which ends Sept 30. [...] It also provide[d] $1.5 billion in added funds for border security, but [did] not include funds for the president's proposal to build a wall on the border with Mexico." Overall, the legislation would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] $1.16 trillion in discretionary appropriations through Sept. 30, 2017 for federal departments and agencies covered by the remaining 11 fiscal 2017 spending bills. [...] The measure would also [have] provide[d] $608 million for health benefits for retired coal miners, $296 million for Medicaid payments to Puerto Rico, and $341 million to replace 40 miles of existing fencing along the southwestern border, though the designs of the fencing must have been 'previously deployed'." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendments. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 309 to 118. The Senate later also agreed to the legislation, sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 249, 5/3/17; Roll Call, 5/2/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 244]