2020: Schweikert Voted For Establishing A Five-Year Grant Program To Phaseout Large-Scale Driftnet Fishing And Adopt Alternative Fishing Practices. In December 2020, Schweikert voted for the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Commerce Department to establish a five-year grant program to facilitate the phaseout of large-scale driftnet fishing and adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine resources. It would authorize grants to driftnet fishing permit holders to cover fees associated with a surrendered permit; forfeiture of previously purchased driftnet fishing gear; and purchase of alternative gear that minimizes incidental catch. It would also allow the department to collect fees from operators of charter vessels for recreational Pacific halibut anglers in certain areas and use such fees to administer halibut fishing quota and conservation programs." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 283-105. The bill was vetoed by President Trump and Congress never voted on overriding the veto. [House Vote 242, 12/10/20; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/20; Congressional Actions, S. 906]
2018: Schweikert Voted For Reauthorizing The Magnuson-Stevens Act Through FY 2022 And Gave More Authority To Local Fishery Management Councils And The Fishing Industry For Setting Overfished Fisheries Are Restored. In July 2018, Schweikert voted for a bill that reauthorized and modified Magnuson-Stevens. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through FY 2022 and modifies the law to provide greater authority to regional fishery management councils and the fishing industry in setting the conditions under which overfished or depleted fisheries are to be restored. Under the measure, the current 10-year requirement for rebuilding overfished or depleted fisheries would be eliminated, and fishery councils could instead set rebuilding periods to shorter time frames more reflective of the individual species' ability to recover. It modifies various requirements regarding 'catch limits' for specific species included in fisheries management plans and prohibits fisheries councils in four regions from implementing any new 'catch share' program unless it has been approved by an industry referendum vote; it allows such programs to be implemented in the other four regions only if a majority of those eligible to participate in the fishery first petitions the department. The measure also extends state management for recreational fishing of the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico out to 9 nautical miles from the coast and includes numerous provisions to improve the data collection on fisheries that subsequently is used by regional councils to develop their fisheries management plans. The measure authorizes $397 million a year through FY 2022 for federal activities to carry out the law (equal to the FY 2013 authorization, the last year it was authorized). For FY 2017, a total of $538 million was appropriated to carry out the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 222 to 193. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 321, 7/11/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/26/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 200]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Reauthorizing The Magnuson-Stevens Act Which Eliminated The Requirement That Generally Established A Ten Year Rebuilding For Overfished Or Depleted Fisheries In June 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reauthorize[d] the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through fiscal year 2019. The measure would authorize $397 million annually through fiscal year 2019 for federal activities to carry out the law. The bill would eliminate the requirement under current law that generally establishes a 10-year period for rebuilding overfished or depleted fisheries and would instead require regional fishery councils to set rebuilding periods to the time it would take for the fishery to rebuild without any fishing occurring, plus one additional generation to be spawned. The measure also would modify various requirements regarding 'catch limits' for specific species included in fisheries management plans and would prohibit fisheries councils in four regions from implementing any new 'catch share' program unless it has been approved by an industry referendum vote; it would allow such programs to be implemented in the other four regions only if a majority of those eligible to participate in the fishery first petitions the department. The measure also would extend state management for recreational fishing of the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico out to nine nautical miles from the coast." The vote was on the bill. The House approved the bill by a vote of 225 to 152. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 267, 6/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1335]
Legislation Would Extend From Three To Nine Miles The Recreational State Jurisdiction For Red Snapper. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House bill (HR 1335) would extend state jurisdiction over recreational red snapper fishing to nine miles off the coast, from the current three-mile limit." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/15]
Environmental Defense Fund Letter: The Magnuson-Stevens Act, Which Was Last Reauthorized In 2006, Has Rebuilt The Stocks Of 67 Commercially And Recreationally Important Fish. According to a letter from the Environmental Defense Fund, "The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working to restore fish populations and the coastal communities that depend on them. [...] The previous two Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006 were supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and have proven generally effective at ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 37 commercially and recreationally important fish stocks have rebuilt to healthy population levels since 2000, while the number of stocks subject to overfishing has been cut by almost one-half since 2006, leading to more fish in the water and better fishing opportunities. Improved conservation has led to increased U.S. seafood revenues and landings and to a recreational fishing industry that generated $58 billion in sales impacts in 2012." [Environmental Defense Fund Letter, 5/27/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Current Requirements Are Working; The Percentage Of Stocks That Are Subject To Overfishing And Ones That Are In An Overfished State Are At Historical Lows; Senior Advisors Would Recommend A Veto. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "The MSA currently provides the flexibility needed to effectively manage the Nation's marine commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries. In contrast, H.R. 1335 would undermine the use of science-based actions to end and prevent overfishing. The current requirements of MSA are working -- the percentage of stocks that are subject to overfishing and the percentage that are in an overfished state are at historic lows. H.R. 1335 would interfere with the tremendous success achieved in rebuilding overfished fisheries by setting rebuilding targets that are not based on sound, credible science, and that unnecessarily extend the time to rebuild fisheries. [...] If the President were presented with H.R. 1335, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 5/19/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Legislation Would Create Confusion, Delay And The Potential For Litigation. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "H.R. 1335 would exempt fishery management actions from the requirements for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and replace them with a new set of standards. This provision is unnecessary, as the regional fishery management councils have integrated environmental analyses into an overall framework that is both timely and effective. For similar reasons, the provisions regarding the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act are unnecessary and likely to give rise to confusion. Rather than reducing burdens on the fishery management councils, these provisions of H.R. 1335 would interfere with a well-established and integrated system and would create confusion, delay, and the potential for litigation." [Statement of Administration Policy, 5/19/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Legislation "Would Create An Untenable Situation Where Recreational And Commercial Fishermen Fishing Side-By-Side Would Be Subject To Different Regulatory Regimes." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "H.R. 1335 would also severely undermine the authority of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Council by extending State jurisdiction over the recreational red snapper fishery to nine miles in the Gulf of Mexico. This proposed extension of jurisdiction would create an untenable situation where recreational and commercial fishermen fishing side-by-side would be subject to different regulatory regimes. Absent an agreement among the States as to how to allocate recreationally-caught red snapper, the bill would encourage interstate conflict and jeopardize the sustainability of this Gulf-wide resource." [Statement of Administration Policy, 5/19/15]
Bill Would Side With Recreational Fisherman. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The GOP-led House passed legislation June 1 by 225-152 that would, among other things, limit the federal government's authority to protect red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, despite a White House veto threat. Republicans are siding with recreational fisherman in the Gulf who complain that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fisheries management and was last reauthorized in 2007, has drastically and unnecessarily shrunk fishing opportunities. [...] 'Gulf red snapper is an American treasure,' Texas Republican Randy Weber said on the floor, 'and should be accessible to all, not just to those who can get a boat and a trailer.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/15]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would State That The Underlying Bills Amendments To Fishery Conservations Would Go Into Effect In The Aftermath Of An Oil Or Hazardous Materials Spill. In June 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "add[ed] a section to the bill that would state that in the aftermath of an oil or hazardous materials spill, none of the amendments to fishery conservation requirements that would be made by certain sections of the bill would apply to any fishery impacted by the spill until specified conditions are met. Those conditions would include: assessment by the relevant Fishery Management Council on the impacts on fish, fishing communities and marine environment; payment by the polluter for any cleanup and provision of compensation for the economic and job loss to the U.S. fishing industry and communities; payment by the polluter to test fish to ensure consumers are protected from toxins that have entered the food chain and to test water quality to help fishermen avoid areas of pollution and find the safest areas to fish." The underlying bill was the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization, which would have "extend[ed] state jurisdiction over recreational red snapper fishing to nine miles off the coast, from the current three-mile limit." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 155 to 223. [House Vote 266, 6/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1335]
Environmental Defense Fund Letter: The Magnuson-Stevens Act, Which Was Last Reauthorized In 2006, Has Rebuilt The Stocks Of 67 Commercially And Recreationally Important Fish. According to a letter from the Environmental Defense Fund, "The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working to restore fish populations and the coastal communities that depend on them. [...] The previous two Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006 were supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and have proven generally effective at ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 37 commercially and recreationally important fish stocks have rebuilt to healthy population levels since 2000, while the number of stocks subject to overfishing has been cut by almost one-half since 2006, leading to more fish in the water and better fishing opportunities. Improved conservation has led to increased U.S. seafood revenues and landings and to a recreational fishing industry that generated $58 billion in sales impacts in 2012." [Environmental Defense Fund Letter, 5/27/15]
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA): Amendment Would "Increase The Ability Of Local Agencies To Hold Polluters More Accountable After A Spill." In a floor speech, Rep. Peters said, "Mr. Speaker, preserving our beaches and bays and our coastal communities for future generations has to be a bipartisan endeavor. Congress passed landmark fisheries legislation in 1976 and reauthorized it in 1996 and 2006 with broad support from both parties. [...] My amendment today is simple: give communities and regional experts at fishery management councils input, and increase the ability of local agencies to hold polluters more accountable after a spill. Just a few weeks ago, on the California coast north of Santa Barbara, a pipeline ruptured beneath a coastal cliff, spilling 105,000 gallons of crude oil onto the beach and tidelands and into the Pacific Ocean. Despite rapid cleanup efforts from environmental officials and volunteers from across the State, the leak killed abundant marine life, including lobsters, seals, kelp bass, and local fish populations. It also forced the closure of local State beaches during the Memorial Day weekend, depriving local businesses of revenue from visitors coming to enjoy the scenic California coast. Now, the short-term harm has been evident, but the long-term damage to the marine life, coastal ecosystems, and biodiversity, including fisheries and food stocks that are part of the region's economy, that damage won't be known for some time." [Congressional Record, 6/1/15]
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA): 2007 Study Conducted By NOAA Found That 26,000 Gallons Of Oil From The Exxon Valdez Were Still Trapped In The Sand Along The Shoreline Of Alaska. In a floor speech, Rep. Peters said, "For example, despite massive cleanup efforts following the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a 2007 study conducted by NOAA found that 26,000 gallons of oil from the Exxon Valdez were still trapped in the sand along the shoreline of Alaska. Those thousands of gallons of oil that remain decades later continue to damage fragile marine ecosystems and wildlife habitat and breeding grounds. That 1989 spill caused more than $300 million in economic harm to more than 32,000 Alaskans whose livelihoods depended on commercial fishing in that region. And in Santa Barbara, where last month's spill occurred, tourism, both on- and offshore, are central to the regional economy and will undoubtedly be harmed by this pollution." [Congressional Record, 6/1/15]
Rep. Robert Bishop (R-UT): Amendment Is Already Covered In The Oil Pollution Act And The Superfund Covers It. In a floor speech, Rep. Bishop said, "on the policy level, this stuff is already covered in the Oil Pollution Act, the Superfund covers it, and if you are really serious about doing this, lines 8 and 9 would be changed to 'NOAA,' as they are in the current statute. They have the expertise and the money to actually accomplish it. But, Mr. Speaker, if I could say to all of you, with apologies to those who have been sending emails and dear colleagues around here, this amendment, you should simply throw it back. It is not a keeper. This is simply a fish story that is based on a big whopper. This amendment would actually take the bill, and it would gut it, clean it, and filet it. So, please, do not fall for this hook, line, and sinker." [Congressional Record, 6/1/15]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Allow The Use Of Lead Tackle When Fishing On Federal Land. In April 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would prohibit the Interior and Agriculture departments from banning the use of lead ammunition or tackle on federal lands or waters that are under their jurisdiction and made available for hunting or fishing. It also would prevent the departments from issuing regulations relating to the level of lead ammunition or tackle being used on these lands. The prohibition on such bans would not apply to regulations in cases where an applicable department determines a decline in wildlife is triggered by the use of lead ammunition or tackle, or when the regulations against lead are consistent with state policy. It also would not apply if regulations against lead are consistent with an applicable policy of the fish and wildlife department of the state where the federal land or water is located." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 214 to 201. [House Vote 167, 4/30/24; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 615]