2016: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds From An FY 2017 Interior And Environment Appropriations Bill From Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the use of funds to implement, administer or enforce Davis-Bacon prevailing rate wage requirements." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 238. [House Vote 448, 7/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1330; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2022: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Funds Under The FY 2023 Budget For The Transportation And Housing And Urban Development Departments To Implement Or Enforce Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirements. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would "prohibit the use of funds made available in the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments and related agencies division of the bill to implement, administer or enforce Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote 165-264. [House Vote 370, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 296; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Funds Authorized By An FAA Reauthorization From Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements. In April 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] any funds authorized by the bill to be used to implement or enforce the prevailing wage rate requirements established by the Davis-Bacon Act." The underlying legislation was an FAA reauthorization bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 243. [House Vote 157, 4/26/18; Congressional Quarterly, 4/26/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 557; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating Davis-Bacon. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Funds For DHS From An FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill From Used Being For Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funding made available in the bill for the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies from being used to implement, administer or enforce the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 173 to 240. [House Vote 464, 9/7/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 315; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Funds For HUD And DOT From An FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill From Being Used For Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds appropriated to the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and related agencies from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirement." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 180 to 241. [House Vote 453, 9/6/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/6/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 296; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Funds For The Agriculture Department From An FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill From Being Used For Davis-Bacon Wage Requirements. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds made available in the bill for the Agriculture Department and related agencies from being used to implement, administer or enforce Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 176 to 241. [House Vote 445, 9/6/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/6/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 276; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds From An FY 2018 'Minibus' From Being Used To Implement Or Enforce The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirement. In July 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds made available in the bill from being used to implement, administer to enforce prevailing wage requirements associated with the Davis-Bacon Act, which specify the basis for wages paid to employees by companies under contract with the federal government." The underlying legislation was an FY 18 'minibus' appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 178 to 249. [House Vote 419, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 234; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds From Surface Transportation Reauthorization To Be Used To Implement Or Enforce The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirement. In November 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the measure from being used in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirements." The underlying legislation was a Surface Transportation Reauthorization. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 238. [House Vote 602, 11/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/4/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt 787; Congressional Actions, H.R. 22]
Davis-Bacon Act Requires That Construction Workers On Federally Funded Construction Projects Be Paid At Least The Locally Prevailing Wage. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Davis-Bacon Act requires employers to pay employees at least the locally prevailing wage and fringe benefits on construction contracts of more than $2,000 to which the federal government is a party. Under the act, construction is defined as the construction of public buildings or public works. Construction includes both new construction and the alteration or repair of existing construction." [Congressional Research Service, 3/30/12]
Requirements Based On View That Government Should Not Drive Down Construction Workers' Wages. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "At the heart of these [prevailing wage] laws is the conviction that government, as a major buyer in the construction sector, should not act to drive down wages. Indeed, the civic-minded reformers who initially pushed for prevailing wage laws believed that the government ought to use its buying power to enhance the welfare of workers and their families." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
Critics: Repealing Prevailing Wage Requirements Would Save 15 to 25 Percent On Public Construction Contracts. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "[State] [r]epeals [of their prevailing wage requirements] have relied on arguments that prevailing wage rates increase costs on public construction contracts (Philips 1998), and assertions that repeal will save 15-25% on construction costs are commonly echoed in the news media." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
Supporters: Modern Economics Literature Shows No Increase In Costs Due To Prevailing Wage Requirements. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "With these [two] exceptions, the modern econometric literature finds no cost impact on public construction associated with the implementation of prevailing wage regulations." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds From The FY 2016 Military Construction-VA Appropriations Act To Be Used To Implement Or Enforce The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirement. In April 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds from being used to implement or enforce the prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act." The underlying legislation was the FY 2016 Military Construction-VA Appropriations Act. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186 to 235. [House Vote 191, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/27/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 150; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Davis-Bacon Act Requires That Construction Workers On Federally Funded Construction Projects Be Paid At Least The Locally Prevailing Wage. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Davis-Bacon Act requires employers to pay employees at least the locally prevailing wage and fringe benefits on construction contracts of more than $2,000 to which the federal government is a party. Under the act, construction is defined as the construction of public buildings or public works. Construction includes both new construction and the alteration or repair of existing construction." [Congressional Research Service, 3/30/12]
Requirements Based On View That Government Should Not Drive Down Construction Workers' Wages. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "At the heart of these [prevailing wage] laws is the conviction that government, as a major buyer in the construction sector, should not act to drive down wages. Indeed, the civic-minded reformers who initially pushed for prevailing wage laws believed that the government ought to use its buying power to enhance the welfare of workers and their families." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
Critics: Repealing Prevailing Wage Requirements Would Save 15 to 25 Percent On Public Construction Contracts. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "[State] [r]epeals [of their prevailing wage requirements] have relied on arguments that prevailing wage rates increase costs on public construction contracts (Philips 1998), and assertions that repeal will save 15-25% on construction costs are commonly echoed in the news media." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
Supporters: Modern Economics Literature Shows No Increase In Costs Due To Prevailing Wage Requirements. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "With these [two] exceptions, the modern econometric literature finds no cost impact on public construction associated with the implementation of prevailing wage regulations." [Economic Policy Institute, 7/3/08]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Davis-Bacon As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for repealing Davis-Bacon. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The budget fully repeals Davis-Bacon." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Bar The Use Of Funds In An FY 2015 Energy And Water Appropriations Bill From Used To Implement Or Enforce The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirement. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the use of funds provided in the bill to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act." The underlying legislation was an FY 2015 energy and water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 239. [House Vote 388, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1013; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Prohibiting Funds From An FY 2014 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill To Be Used To Implement Or Enforce The Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirement. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the use of funds in the bill to administer or enforce Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements." The underlying legislation was an FY 2014 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 192 to 231. [House Vote 191, 6/4/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 96; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2216]