2020: Schweikert Voted Against A $135 Billion Spending Package On Renewable Energy Programs. In September 2020, Schweikert voted against the Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize Energy Department activities and programs related to renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and energy infrastructure and workforce development. It would authorize or reauthorize a wide range of DOE research and development programs through fiscal 2025, including to authorize over $5.5 billion for programs related to renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal and water power; $3.5 billion for programs to modernize and improve the national electric grid; a number of carbon reduction programs, including $3.2 billion for a carbon storage program; and a number of nuclear energy programs, including $174 million to support the availability of high-assay low enriched uranium [...] It would require all federal agencies to assess public health impacts of proposed actions that may affect communities disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards; require the EPA to take actions to identify disproportionate health and environmental effects on communities of color and low-income communities; and authorize $5 billion through fiscal 2025 for grants to local governments or nonprofits for environmental justice projects." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-185. The Senate did not take action on the bill. [House Vote 206, 9/24/20; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/20; Congressional Actions, H.R.4447]
The Bill Funded Programs To Boost Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Sources To Combat Climate Change. According to The Hill, "The House on Thursday passed a broad bill that aims to boost energy efficiency and renewable energy sources as part of an attempt to combat climate change. [...] The legislation would create research and development programs for solar, wind, advanced geothermal energy and hydroelectric power as well as lessening pollution from fossil fuel production." [The Hill, 9/24/20]
The White House Issued A Veto Threat For The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The White House budget office issued a veto threat on Monday against the bill and Republicans criticized the legislation, arguing it would raise electricity costs and delay permitting for new energy projects." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/20]
Republicans Argued That The Bill Would Raise Electric Costs For Americans. According to The Hill, "'The top Republicans on the National Resources, Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees released a joint statement criticizing the legislation this week. 'Here we are in the middle of a global pandemic and Speaker Pelosi wants to spend more than $135 billion on a piece of legislation that will never become law,' said Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and Frank Lucas (R-Okla.). 'This bill is chock-full of government mandates that would raise what Americans pay for everything from the vehicles they drive to what they pay to heat, cool, and power their homes.'" [The Hill, 9/24/20]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For The Efficiency And Renewable Energy Division At The DOE By 50 Percent. In September 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to a renewable energy package that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase energy efficiency and renewable energy funding authorization levels by 50% annually through fiscal 2025 for Energy Department research and development activities related to solar, wind, and water energy. It also would add authorization totals for research, development, demonstration, and commercialization activities under the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through fiscal 2025, authorizing $3.2 billion in fiscal 2021 increasing incrementally to $3.4 billion in fiscal 2025." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 235-173. [House Vote 203, 9/24/20; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/20; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.892; Congressional Actions, H.R.4447]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against Decreasing Fossil Energy Research Funding And Increase Funding For Advanced Research, Each By $28.3 Million. In June 2018, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d] funding for fossil energy research and development at the Energy Department by $28.3 million, and would [have] increase[d] funding for advanced research projects at the department by the same amount." The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 minibus of Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 204 to 214. [House Vote 245, 6/7/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 730; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5895]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Programs By $5 Million With A Corresponding Decrease In Salaries And Expenses At The Energy Department. In June 2018, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the Energy Department by $5 million and would decrease funding for the salaries and expenses at the Energy Department by the same amount." The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 minibus of Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 201 to 217. [House Vote 244, 6/7/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/7/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 725; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5895]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development By $355 Million And Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiently And Renewable Energy By $177 Million. In July 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] by $177 million funding to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account and would [have] reduce[d] by $355 million funding to the Fossil Fuel Research and Development account." The underlying legislation was an FY 18 'minibus' appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 246. [House Vote 420, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 234; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy And Reducing Funding For Fossil Energy Research. In May 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] funding for Energy Department fossil energy research and development by $13 million and increase[d] funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities by roughly $10 million." The underlying bill was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 167 to 251. [House Vote 245, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1096; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy And Increasing Funding For Fossil Energy Research. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] funding for Energy Department energy efficiency and renewable energy activities by $50 million and increase funding for fossil energy research and development by $45 million." The underlying bill was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 236. [House Vote 243, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1090; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Funding For Renewable Energy Programs. In April 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "eliminate[d] funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, nuclear energy and fossil fuel research and apply the $3.2 billion savings to the spending reduction account." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 Energy and water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 110 to 311. [House Vote 200, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 172; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Increase Funding For Renewable And Efficient Energy By $26 Million And Cut Funding For Fossil Fuels By $34 Million. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and cut funding for fossil fuels by $34 million. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, "increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and reduce funding for fossil energy by $34 million." The underlying bill would have made, according to Congressional Quarterly, "appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 173 to 248. [House Vote 198, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/02/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 167; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): Amendment Reduced A Proposed $266 Million Cut To Renewable Energy Funding. According to a floor speech by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), "Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase investments in fossil fuel by $34 million. [...] I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future-- renewable energy." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): Amendment Prevented A Proposed Increase In Fossil Fuel Funding. According to a floor speech by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), "Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase investments in fossil fuel by $34 million. [...] I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future-- renewable energy." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID): "We Are The Saudi Arabia Of Coal." In a floor speech in opposition to the amendment, Rep. Simpson (R-ID) said, "it is the same debate we used on the other amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more efficiently, and that is what we are investing in." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Cutting Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy By Increasing Funding For Fossil Energy Research And Development. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for fossil energy research and development by $50 million and reduce funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by a similar amount." The underlying legislation was H.R. 2028, which was the FY 2016 Energy and Water Development appropriations act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 244. [House Vote 197, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 164; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminating Contributions To The Clean Technology Fund And The Strategic Climate Fund As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating contributions to the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund. According to the Republican Study Committee, the budget proposes to, "Eliminate Contributions to the Clean Technology Fund[.] The Clean Technology Fund was created in 2010 by the Obama administration to promote green energy abroad. Borrowing from foreign nations to spend millions promoting green energy is not a wise fiscal decision. Ending contributions to the fund beginning in FY 2016 would save over $184 million per year. Eliminate Contributions to the Strategic Climate Fund[.] Created in 2010 by the Obama administration, the Strategic Fund is meant to address climate change abroad. Ending contributions to the fund beginning in FY 2016 would save $50 million per year." 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]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminating The Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Program (EERE) As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the EERE. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Beginning in FY 2016, programs within the EERE account should be eliminated, saving the taxpayers over $1.9 billion per year." 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 Against Providing An Additional $10 Million For Flood Control, Port And Navigation Development, And Water Restoration Projects; As Well As An Additional $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy. In July 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Army Corps of Engineers construction activities, specifically for water restoration projects, flood control and the development of navigation and ports. It would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy account and decrease[d] by $20 million the amount provided for Energy Department salaries and expenses." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 188 to 231. [House Vote 401, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Motion's Sponsor Argued $10 Million For Preventative Water Projects Could Help Save Lives During Flood Season, While $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Would Pare Back The Underlying Bill's "Harsh" $113 Million Cut To Those Areas. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bill Enyart (D-IL), the motion's sponsor, said, "Also well known [sic] across the State and particularly along Illinois' Mississippi River border were the efforts of men and women of the Illinois National Guard during flood season--efforts, resources, and dollars that can be saved with the preventative measures funded in this amendment. The amendment before us today provides an additional $10 million to the Army Corps of Engineers for projects that could include levee construction, levee repair, flood mitigation, and flood prevention. [...] Also included in this amendment is an additional $10 million for the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. Current language in the bill is almost $113 million less than in 2014 and $530 million less than the administration's request. We simply cannot afford such harsh reductions in funding for an area where our country desperately needs growth: energy efficiency and independence." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
Opponent Argued That Bill Already Increased Funding For The Army Corps Of Engineers By $25 Million, When The Administration Would Have Cut $1 Billion, And That Departmental Administration (DA) Funding Should Not Be Cut Any Further Than It Was Already. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-IA) said, "I wish the gentleman [Rep. Enyart] who just spoke would call the administration. His budget request was nearly $1 billion below last year's for the Army Corps of Engineers. That is what the administration proposed to us. We restored that and, in fact, increased last year's Army Corps of Engineers budget by $25 million while, at the same time, cutting $50 million out of the overall bill, so I wish he would talk to the administration about its budget request. This is a balanced bill, made more balanced by the 2 days of amendments we have debated--some accepted, some not accepted--from all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have already taken $45 million out of the DA account. I know it is an easy account to target, to just take money out of, but at some point in time, you have to stop, and we have already taken $45 million out of the DA account." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $9 Million Through A Reduction Energy Department Salaries And Expenses. In July 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Bonamici, D-Ore., amendment that would increase by $9 million the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities and decrease the amount provided for Energy Department salaries and expenses by the same amount." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 221 to 199. [House Vote 380, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut Nearly $31 Million From Energy Department Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency Programs. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to the its stated purpose, "[would have] reduce[d] funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs by $22 million; Nuclear Energy Programs by $9,810,000; Fossil Energy Research and Development by $30,935,000; Department of Energy Departmental Administration by $9,551,000; Salaries and Expenses for Nuclear Regulatory Commission by $49,062,000 and to apply $121,358,000 to the spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 129 to 290. [House Vote 379, 7/10/14; Congress.Gov, H. Amdt. 993 (113th Congress), Viewed 8/15/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 993; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
To Control and Fund Federal Agencies And Programs, Congress Often Follows A Two-Step Process: It Authorizes Appropriations For A Defined Agency Or Program, And Then Separately Allocates Actual Funding Among Authorized Programs In An Appropriations Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, "A primary avenue for exercising Congress's power of the purse is the authorization and appropriation of federal spending to carry out government activities. While the power over appropriations is granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution, the authorization-appropriation process is derived from House and Senate rules. The formal process consists of two sequential steps: (1) enactment of an authorization measure that may create or continue an agency, program, or activity as well as authorize the subsequent enactment of appropriations; and (2) enactment of appropriations to provide funds for the authorized agency, program, or activity." [CRS Report #RS20371, 11/26/12]
Amendment's Sponsor Said He Was Trying To Eliminate Some Of The Bill's $24 Billion In Funding For Programs Congress Had Not Separately Authorized. According to the Congressional Record, "[E]ver since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. Yet last year, the eleven appropriations bills reported out of the House Appropriations Committee contained over $350 billion in spending on unauthorized programs. The rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring these appropriations to the floor. The bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as 1980. That was Jimmy Carter's last year in office. Now, I am sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely, others are not. The fact that they have not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at least a little more careful about continuing to fund them." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut $3.1 Billion In Energy Department Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would decrease by $3.1 billion the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, Energy Department nuclear energy activities and fossil energy research and development collectively and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 97 to 321. [House Vote 377, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 992; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued Funding Was Simply "Corporate Welfare" That Subsidized Private Companies R&D Budgets, Distorting The Energy Industry While Not Even Making The Resulting Research Public. According to the Congressional Record, the amendment's sponsor, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), said, "[T]his amendment requires energy companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of $3.1 billion. If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete on its own merits. For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco. This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that received these public funds. Public costs, private benefit -- that is called corporate welfare. That is what these energy subsidies amount to. My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds." [Congressional Record, 7/9/14]
Amendment Opponent Argued It Eliminated "Strategic Investments For Our Energy Independence," Including Research Into Using Coal In Electricity-Producing Fuel Cells. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "The bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million below the budget request. The fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases of $31 million and $10 million, respectively. The increase to fossil energy will support research into how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power through fuel cells. The increase to nuclear energy will accommodate a $10 million increase to support base physical and cybersecurity activities at the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy materials and a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies. Although my colleague asserts that the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence." [Congressional Record, 7/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate All $1.8 Billion In FY 2015 Funding For The Energy Department's Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency Programs. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2014 Energy And Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] eliminate[d] the $1.8 billion provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 110 to 310. [House Vote 376, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 990; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Amendment's Sponsor Said Government Should Not Play Private Investor By Risking Taxpayer Dollars On, Or Subsidizing, A Small, Mostly Unproductive Part Of Energy Industry. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), the amendment's sponsor, said, "[T]his amendment seeks to strike all of the funding for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE] program. This program, under the Department of Energy, allows the government to invest millions of taxpayer dollars in high-risk research and development schemes for 'green energy' projects to the tune, as we have heard already, of over $1.7 billion. The government should not be subsidizing the research and development initiatives of individual companies. Competition and innovation have been key aspects of private sector success from day one in the energy sector and other parts of our economy, and the government should not take the role of a private investor. [...] Every business has a bottom line which, in and of itself, is a direct incentive for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy, which includes renewables such as solar and wind, and allows for such focuses as the weatherization of houses, we are essentially allowing DOE to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy initiatives and projects that place taxpayer dollars at risk and that are not likely to produce a return on investment. We, as a Congress, have continuously stated the need for an all-of- the-above energy strategy but continued investment into the EERE program focuses on a small portion of a largely unproductive portion of the energy sector at the expense of the more traditional energy sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, that we have a proven, reliable track record on." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
Amendment Opponent Said Renewable Energy Was An "Important Part Of An Overall Energy Strategy," And It Was Important That The Federal Government Fund Research Into Potentially Valuable Technologies, Such As More Efficient Vehicles And Renewables. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "While I opposed increasing EERE funding in previous amendments, I am also opposed to eliminating EERE. When you look at the traditional energy sources that we use, the government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear energy, into fracking, into other things, and hydrocarbons because they are important. It is not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from, but it is the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to advance certain technologies and help technologies become more efficient for the consumers to use. We are trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient. We are trying to do work to make a SuperTruck that is much more fuel efficient. I guess it could be argued whether the government should do any research at all. [...] You could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any money into space research and putting a man on the Moon -- that should have been done by a private company -- yet the American economy and the world has benefited greatly from the investment that American taxpayers made into NASA. The same is true with the fuels that we use. While we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that produce a minority -- a small amount -- of energy compared to the others, we have tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately reflects the actual energy used, the percentage of the actual energy used. That doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate EERE and renewable energies. As I said previously, I like renewable energies. I think they are cute. They provide a small portion of our overall energy demand, and I don't see that increasing a whole lot because they can't address the base load needs of our energy demand in this country, but they are going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $111.6 Million Through A Reduction In Fossil Fuel Research And Development. In July 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Swalwell, D-Calif., amendment that would increase by $111.6 million the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities and decrease by $161.9 million the amount provided for fossil energy research and development." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 245. [House Vote 375, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $10.5 Million. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Wenstrup, R-Ohio, amendment that would increase by $15 million the amount provided for non-defense environmental cleanup activities and decrease by $10.4 million the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities. It also would decrease by $8.5 million the amount provided for Energy Department departmental administration activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 112 to 309. [House Vote 374, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $127 Million. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "McAllister, R-La., amendment that would increase by $47 million the amount provided in the bill for flood damage reduction projects and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley and reduce by $127 million the amount provided for Energy Department energy efficiency and renewable energy activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 284. [House Vote 371, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $2 Million Through A Reduction In Energy Department Funding For Administration Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Schneider, D-Ill., motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would increase by $3.7 million the amount provided for Army Corps of Engineers investigation and construction activities; increase by $7 million funding for flood and natural disaster preparation; and increase by $2 million funding for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities. It also would reduce by $12.7 million funding for Energy Department administration activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 195 to 230. [House Vote 344, 7/10/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $40 Million Through A Reduction In Funding For Nuclear Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $40 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for nuclear-weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 166 to 250. [House Vote 324, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $20 Million Through A Reduction In Funding For Nuclear Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $20 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for nuclear-weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 164 to 252. [House Vote 323, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $15.5 Million Through A Reduction In Funding For Nuclear Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $15.5 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for nuclear-weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 174 to 242. [House Vote 322, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $15 Million Through A Reduction In Funding For Nuclear Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $15 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for nuclear-weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 238. [House Vote 321, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $10 Million Through A Reduction Salaries And Expenses Of The Energy Department. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $10 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for Energy Department salaries and expenses." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191 to 223. [House Vote 320, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Reducing Funding For Renewable Energy Programs. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] by $1.5 billion the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency, renewable-energy, nuclear-energy, and fossil energy research and development activities and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The underlying legislation was an FY 2014 Energy and water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 115 to 300. [House Vote 319, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 258; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $1 Million Through A Reduction In Administration Funds. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase funds for the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency account by $1 million, offset by a reduction of the same amount to administration funds." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 201 to 213. [House Vote 318, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Reducing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $4.8 Million. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would decrease by $4.8 million the amount provided for renewable-energy, energy reliability and energy efficiency activities and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 158 to 256. [House Vote 317, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $50 Million Through A Reduction In Funding For Nuclear Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $50 million the amount provided for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities and electricity delivery and energy reliability activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for nuclear-weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 168 to 241. [House Vote 316, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Reducing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $9.8 Million. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would reduce by $9.8 million the amount provided for energy efficiency, renewable-energy, electricity delivery and energy reliability activities and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 153 to 257. [House Vote 315, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $31 Million Through A Reduction Salaries And Expenses Of The Energy Department. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $31 million the amount provided for energy efficiency, renewable-energy, electricity delivery and energy reliability activities, offset by an equal reduction to the amount provided for salaries and expenses at the Energy Department." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 140 to 275. [House Vote 314, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Increasing Energy Efficiency And Alternative Energy Funding By $245 Million Through A Reduction In Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on, according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would increase by $245 million the amount provided for renewable-energy, energy reliability and efficiency programs, offset by an equal reduction for National Nuclear Security Administration weapons activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 152 to 264. [House Vote 313, 7/9/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2609]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The DoD From Purchasing Alternative Energy Unless It Costs The Same And Has The Same Capability As Regular Forms Of Energy. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment to an FY 2016 defense authorization that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the Defense Department from purchasing alternative energy unless the cost and capability is equivalent to conventional energy." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 defense authorization. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 159 to 266. [House Vote 208, 5/18/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1029; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4909]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminating Rural Renewable Energy Subsidies As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating Rural Renewable Energy Subsidies. According to the Republican Study Committee, the "Eliminate Rural Renewable Energy Subsidies[.] This program should be eliminated beginning in FY 2016, saving the taxpayers $1.35 million per year. This program subsidizes the development of renewable energy programs for small rural businesses and agriculture producers. The federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing inefficient types of energy that would be better produced by the private market. According to GAO, this is just one of 679 different economically unsound initiatives meant to promote green energy." 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]
2013: Schweikert Voted For Cutting Funding For Research And Development Of Alternative Energy Sources As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Schweikert voted for cutting funding for research and development of alternative energy sources, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, "The budget provides sufficient funding for essential projects, like energy security and basic research and development. But it pares back spending in areas of duplication and non-core functions, like applied and commercial research and development projects best left to the private sector." The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Critics Claimed That Similar Provisions in Ryan's FY2012 Budget Would Effectively Eliminate Clean Energy Investments. According to the blog Grist, "House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget resolution is a backward-looking plan that [...] completely eliminate[s] investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential for long-term economic growth." [Grist, 8/13/12]
Similar Provisions in Ryan's FY2012 Budget Would Eliminate Funding For R&D Programs, Loan Guarantees To Build Factories And Funding For Building An Electric Car Infrastructure. According to Grist, The federal government invested seed money beginning in 2009 to launch such an industry here. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) observed that federal policies on batteries alone "have attracted 17 [battery] companies who are projected to create 63,000 jobs." But Ryan's budget will nearly eliminate funding for this and other R&D programs that can lead to advances in battery technology. It also eliminates loan guarantees that can help manufacturing plants get built in the United States, and ignores investments to build a battery-charging infrastructure essential to expand the market for electric vehicles and reduce oil use." [Grist, 8/13/12]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Extending For Two Years The Production Tax Credit For Biomass And Other Energy, The Non-Business Energy Property Credit, The Production Credit For Indian Coal Facilities And Other Energy Tax Incentives As Part Of A Larger Tax Extender Passage. In December 2015, Schweikert voted to extend various energy tax incentives. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "The measure extends for 2015 and 2016 the following tax provisions intended to act as energy incentives, which JCT estimates would cost nearly $7.5 billion over 10 years [...] the production tax credit for closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, trash, hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic renewable-energy sources for facilities for which construction began before the end of 2015 or 2016, as well as the election to treat qualified facilities as energy property that is eligible for other energy credits ($1.4 billion over 10 years); The non-business energy property tax credit of up to $500 for energy improvements, including a modification that would update Energy Star requirements ($1.3 billion); and The production credit for Indian coal facilities placed in service before 2009 [...] The production tax credits for biodiesel, the small agri-biodiesel producer credit and diesel fuel created from biomass [...] Excise tax credits for alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixtures, other than liquefied hydrogen ($918 million); The manufacturer credit of up to $2,000 for construction of energy-efficient new homes ($760 million); The above-the-line deduction for energy efficiency improvements to commercial buildings ($324 million) [...] A 10% credit for two-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles" among others. The underlying measure would "retroactively [renew] for the current 2015 tax year most of the expired provisions and further extends them for varying periods, including by making more than a dozen permanent and extending most others for two years (2015 and 2016)." The vote was on concurring in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House passed the amendment by a vote of 318 to 109. The legislation was later combined with an Omnibus appropriations bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 703, 12/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]