2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The RAPID Act, Which Modified The Environmental Review Process For Federally Funded Projects To Also Require Alternative Project Reviews To Address Flooding, Wildfire And Climate Change. In September 2015, Schweikert voted against and amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] alternatives to address flooding, wildfire, and climate change risks." The underlying bill was H.R. 348, the RAPID Act which modified the environmental review process for federally funded projects. The measure limited the type of alternative projects that could be reviewed. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 170 to 228. [House Vote 508, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funding For The American Climate Corps In The FY 2025 Energy-Water Appropriations. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 36 that would prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill for the American Climate Corps." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 Energy-Water appropriations. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 199 to 197. [House Vote 363, 7/23/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.1099; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8997]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Intelligence Appropriations Bill That Blocked The Establishment Of A Climate Security Advisory Council. In July 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill a provision that would establish a climate security council under the Office of the Director if National Intelligence." The vote was on adoption. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 178-255. [House Vote 490, 7/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.571; Congressional Actions, H.R.3494]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Prohibited Funds From Being Used For Contributions To International Climate Change Conventions. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "clarify that no funds made available by the bill may be used for contributions on behalf of the U.S. to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the Green Climate Fund." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 174-244. [House Vote 327, 6/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.343; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing The U.S. From Withdrawing From The Paris Climate Agreement And Against Requiring The President Create A Plan To Meet The Agreement's Obligation. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against the Climate Action Now Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[p]assage of the bill, as amended, that would prohibit the use of federal funds for U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change and would require the president to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the accord. Specifically, it would require the plan to describe how the U.S. will meet, by 2025, its proposed goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels. It would also require the plan to describe how the U.S. will confirm that other major parties to the accord are fulfilling their proposed contributions. The bill would require the plan to be submitted to Congress and made public no later than 120 days after enactment and to be updated annually. As amended, the bill would require the plan to describe how the U.S. can assist other parties in fulfilling contributions to the accord; require a public comment period on the plan and on subsequent updates to the plan; and order a number of reports on the impacts of the Paris Agreement on clean energy job development, the U.S. economy, and U.S. territories." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 231 to 190. [House Vote 184, 5/2/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/19; Congressional Actions, H.R. 9]
2019: Schweikert Voted To Allow Federal Funds To Be Used To Exit The Climate Paris Agreement. In May 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] from the bill a section that would prohibit any federal funds from being used to facilitate the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement." The underlying legislation would have prevented the U.S. from withdrawing the Paris Climate Agreement. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 189 to 234. [House Vote 177, 5/2/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 178; Congressional Actions, H.R. 9]
2019: Schweikert Voted To State That The Paris Climate Agreement Is A Treaty And Needs To Be Ratified By The Senate. In May 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "state[d] that the Paris Agreement is a treaty and state that no further action toward its goals should occur before the Senate ratifies the agreement." The underlying legislation would have prevented the U.S. from withdrawing the Paris Climate Agreement. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 189 to 234. [House Vote 176, 5/2/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 177; Congressional Actions, H.R. 9]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Funding The Select Committee On The Climate Crisis. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against a motion to order the previous question on a rule that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for House floor consideration of the bill that would make permanent and expand a Veterans Affairs Department program that provides child care assistance to veterans while they are receiving certain VA health care services (HR 840), and that would provide for the automatic agreement in the House to a resolution (H Res 86) that would provide $70,000 for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and $50,000 for the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress to cover expenses through March 31, 2019. It would also provide for motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of Feb. 15, 2019." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 227 to 189. [House Vote 68, 2/7/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/7/19; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 105]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Federal Rules Or Studies That Use "The Social Cost Of Carbon." In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the use of funds appropriated by the bill to implement any rules or regulations that rely on certain studies related to the 'social cost of carbon.' The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 225 to 186. The House later passed the overall bill. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 489, 9/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 369; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing Federal Agencies To Consider The Social Cost Of Carbon When Making Rules. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] the bill's provisions that would allow federal agencies to use the social cost of carbon in rule makings and guidance documents." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 185 to 241. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 432, 7/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1307; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Defense Department's Climate Change Directive. In June 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds to implement a Defense Department directive related to climate change." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 defense appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 216 to 205. The House later passed the underlying bill, which included the provision. The Senate later attempted to proceed to the bill, which was rejected. [House Vote 314, 6/16/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/16/16; Congress.gov, H.R. 5293; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1195; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5293]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funds To Be Used To Issue Rules Or Guidance That Reference The Social Costs Of Carbon Analysis. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds made available by the bill to issue regulations or guidance that references or relies on the social cost of carbon analysis." The underlying legislation was an FY 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 230 to 188. The underlying bill later failed to pass the House. [House Vote 256, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1117; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Allowing Federal Agencies To Consider The Impacts Of Climate Change During The Permitting Or Approval Processes For Certain Projects. In May 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "state[d] that [the bill] would not prevent a federal agency from considering potential impacts on climate change during permitting or approval processes undertaken in accordance with the measure." The underlying bill was an energy policy bill. The vote was on a motion to rcommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 178 to 239. [House Vote 249, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, S. 2012]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Funding To Implement Executive Orders Requiring The Defense Department To Incorporate Climate Reviews In Operations, Acquisition And Planning. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] use of funds to implement two executive orders that require the Defense Department to meet certain green energy mandates and to incorporate climate change reviews in operations, acquisition and planning." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 defense authorization. The vote was on the amendment. The House approved the amendment by a vote of 227 to 198. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but the Senate took no substantive action on it. [House Vote 209, 5/18/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/16; Congress.gov, H.R. 4909; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1030; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4909]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Stating That Because Of Climate Change, U.S. Energy Policy Should Seek To Remove Market Barriers For Renewable Energy. In December 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that stated "In response to the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, United States energy policy should seek to remove market barriers that inhibit the development of renewable energy infrastructure." The underlying legislation was H.R. 8, an energy security and infrastructure bill. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 180 to 243. [House Vote 671, 12/3/15; Congressional Record, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Continuing Current Targets For Reducing Fossil Fuel Energy Usage In Federal Buildings. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "continue[d] currently enacted targets for reducing energy from fossil fuels in federal buildings." The underlying legislation was H.R. 8, an energy security and infrastructure bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 246. [House Vote 659, 12/2/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/2/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 853; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Limit Mining Permitting Agencies From Assessing Climate Change From A Potential Mine. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "not limit[ed] the authority of the lead permitting agency to assess the proposed activity's potential contribution to climate change." The underlying legislation would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "deem[ed] mining operations of 'strategic and critical minerals' as 'infrastructure projects' as described in a 2012 presidential order regarding permitting of infrastructure projects. [...] The bill would [have] require[d] the lead agency responsible for issuing mining permits to appoint a project lead to coordinate interagency permitting to minimize delays and set timelines. The bill also would [have] deem[ed] requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to have been met if the lead agency determines that any state or federal agency has or will address certain factors specified in the bill, including the environmental impact and public participation." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 246. [House Vote 564, 10/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1937]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Allow Federal Agencies To Consider The Social Cost Of Carbon. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would allow rules to consider the social cost of carbon. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "allow[ed] rules to consider the social cost of carbon." In addition, according to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), the amendment "would strip the bill of a harmful and unrelated restriction that actually would prohibit Federal agencies from assessing the social cost of carbon, meaning Federal agencies would not be able to look at the monetized impact, the actual costs of climate change. They would be forced to deliberately have a blindfold and not be allowed to consider climate change in their planning, just like American businesses do, like States do, like municipalities do, but the Federal Government would be prohibited from even looking at the costs of climate change." The underlying measure was the FY 2016 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 186 to 243. [House Vote 400, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Record, 7/7/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 571; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
2013: Energy Department Set "Social Cost Of Carbon" At $36 Per Ton. According to The Washington Post, "The agency is now using a higher figure for the 'social cost of carbon' in calculating the benefits of the rule. Instead of assuming that the harm caused by carbon-dioxide emissions comes to $22 per ton in 2013, regulators are now using a figure of about $36 per ton. That's a big shift --- the Obama administration is effectively saying that climate change will be more damaging than previously estimated, in part because of the impacts of future sea-level rise. And that means U.S. government agencies could, in theory, justify even stricter regulations to curb greenhouse-gas emissions." [Washington Post, 6/5/13]
Cost Of Carbon Was Determined By Scrutinizing Climate Models And Estimating The Future Effects Of Higher Temperatures. According to The Washington Post, "Back in 2010, 12 different U.S. government agencies got together and tried to estimate how much damage a ton of carbon-dioxide actually caused through global warming. This is a tricky calculation. It entails scrutinizing climate models and estimating the future effects of higher temperatures, and then translating that into present-day dollar terms, which means deciding how much value to place on future generations. When the dust settled, the agencies settled on a central estimate of about $21 per ton of carbon-dioxide in 2010 --- rising to $22 by 2013 and continuing upward --- and the value varied if you put more or less weight on future generations." [Washington Post, 6/5/13]
Rep. Calvert (R-CA) Opposed The Amendment Because The EPA's Approach To Costs Was "Flawed," Added The Social Cost Of Carbon Helped Justify "Larger Benefits From Reducing Carbon Emissions." According to a floor speech by Rep. Calvert obtained via the Congressional Record, "Madam Chair, I have long been concerned with how EPA conducts its cost-benefit analysis to justify its rulemaking. This is something that the committee has discussed with EPA on a number of occasions, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that EPA's approach to examining costs and their regulation was flawed. The administration's revised estimates for the social cost of carbon help justify on paper larger benefits from reducing carbon emissions in any proposed rule. If the administration can inflate the price tag so that the benefits always exceed the costs, the administration can goldplate requirement regulations from any department or any agency." [Congressional Record, 7/7/15]
2015: Rep. Lummis (R-WY) Said Obama Administration's Social Cost Of Carbon "Risks American Jobs And Our Nation's Prosperity." According to Bloomberg BNA, "Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee blasted the Obama administration July 22 for continuing to rely on an estimate of the costs imposed by carbon pollution on human health and other societal costs to justify power plant carbon pollution limits and other climate rules Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said that while she acknowledges the Earth is warming, she believes the social cost of carbon estimates inflate the benefits of regulations, which in turn only encourages more burdensome regulations by federal agencies. 'The social cost of carbon risks American jobs and our nation's prosperity, all in the name of questionable statistical models,' Lummis said. The White House earlier this month revised the carbon social cost figure---which it first began using in 2009 to reflect the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon pollution---to $36 a ton." [Bloomberg BNA, 7/23/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Remove A Provision That Effectively Lowers The Amount Of Climate Science-Related Initiatives Funded By The Federal Government. In May 2015, Schweikert voted against removing a provision from a scientific research funding authorization bill that would force the Energy Department's Office of Science to only approve climate science if it was determined that the work was not duplicative. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "remove[d] a provision in the bill that would require a Government Accountability Office report identifying certain overlapping climate science-related initiatives. It also would [have] remove[d] a provision that would prohibit the director of the Energy Department's Office of Science from approving new climate science-related initiatives without making a determination that such work is unique and not duplicative of work by other federal agencies. The underlying bill was H.R. 1806, the America Competes Reauthorization Act, which "authorize[d] $32.9 billion over fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2017 for a number of agencies that support scientific research, industrial innovation and certain educational activities." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 187 to 236. The underlying measure later passed the full House, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 254, 5/20/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 250; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1806]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block The Energy Department's Climate Model Development And Validation Program. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy Department and Water Development Programs Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would bar the use of funds provided in the bill for the Energy Department's Climate Model Development and Validation program." The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 226 to 194, and later passed the underlying bill. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 399, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1045; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block Funding For Several Climate Change-Related Science And Development Reports, Including The National Climate Assessment And The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy Department and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to the Congressional Record, stated that "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the United States Global Climate Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's [sic] Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, or the July 2014 Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations' pathways to deep decarbonization report." The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 229 to 188, and later passed the underlying bill. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 397, 7/10/14; Congressional Record, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1040; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
The US Global Climate Research Program's National Climate Assessment Is A Broadly Reviewed Report Assessing Climate Change Science And Impacts On The United States. According to the third National Climate Assessment report, titled "Climate Change Impacts in the United States," "The National Climate Assessment assesses the science of climate change and its impacts across the United States, now and throughout this century. It documents climate change related impacts and responses for various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private decision-making at all levels. A team of more than 300 experts, [...] guided by a 60-member National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee [...] produced the full report -- the largest and most diverse team to produce a U.S. climate assessment. Stakeholders involved in the development of the assessment included decision-makers from the public and private sectors, resource and environmental managers, researchers, representatives from businesses and non-governmental organizations, and the general public. More than 70 workshops and listening sessions were held, and thousands of public and expert comments on the draft report provided additional input to the process. The assessment draws from a large body of scientific peer-reviewed research, technical input reports, and other publicly available sources; all sources meet the standards of the Information Quality Act. The report was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, the 13 Federal agencies of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Federal Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability." [Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 5/5/14]
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report Is A "Comprehensive Assessment Of Scientific Knowledge On Climate Change." According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website, "One of the main IPCC activities is the preparation of comprehensive Assessment Reports about the state of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its causes, potential impacts and response strategies. [...] The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is being released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014. It will be the most comprehensive assessment of scientific knowledge on climate change since 2007 when Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was released." [IPCC Website, Viewed 8/11/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block The Department Of Defense From Assessing Or Reporting On Climate Change. In May 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would bar the use of funds in the bill to conduct climate change assessments and reports." The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 231 to 192. The House subsequently passed the underlying bill; however, the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 231, 5/22/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 671; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4435]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued That Congress Needed To Prevent Defense Funding From Being Diverted To Fund What He Argued Was The Administration's Ideological Climate Change Crusade Against Carbon. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), the amendment's sponsor, said, "Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration. We shouldn't be diverting our financial resources away from the primary missions of our military and our national security in pursuit of an ideology. For example, earlier this year, the President diverted crucial funding on rural sewer and water line grants to promote his climate change initiatives. Let's make it clear. I acknowledge that climate change is occurring. The climate has always been changing. The question is whether or not, given the global unrest from these rogue nations and our war on terrorism, whether we should be diverting our funds to support an ideology instead of maximizing our investments in national security. Now, climate change alarmists contend that man-made CO 2 is the cause of climate change. Most people may not realize that 96 percent of all the CO 2 emissions occur naturally, and America's CO 2 emissions' contribution to the global community is actually less than 1 percent, Mr. Chairman. But even with these facts, decarbonizing America's economy is still a long-term goal of the climate alarmists. [...] We shouldn't be putting our funds for the military and our defense at risk by diverting funds for an ideologically motivated agenda. If this administration truly wishes to address the problem of CO 2 emissions, they should help the rest of the world tackle the deforestation of our tropical rain forests. [...] We should not sacrifice our economy and our national security by diverting funds in pursuit of an ideological crusade. This is not the time to divert our financial resources from our military for climate change purposes when we are confronting Syria, Iran, Russia, Libya, and other rogue nations around the world. In addition, we have Boko Haram, Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups promoting instability and threatening liberty and freedom around the world. Consequently, this amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda." [Congressional Record, 5/21/14]
Amendment Opponent Argued It Would Force The Defense Department To Ignore Both Science And The Real World Effects, Costs And Threats To National Security Resulting From Climate Change. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, "Mr. Chairman, the McKinley amendment provides that the Department of Defense may not make decisions based on science. Imagine, the Department of Defense should not make decisions based on science. They should ignore that there may be a cost from climate change. This amendment waves a magic wand and decrees that climate change imposes no costs at all. Therefore, they would block the Defense Department from recognizing the damage caused by climate change. This is incredible, because the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review called climate change 'an accelerant of instability or conflict' that 'could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.' But the McKinley amendment tells the DOD to ignore these impacts. Numerous national security experts with unimpeachable credentials-- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have warned that climate change threatens our national security. Just this month, a panel of retired three- and four-star generals and admirals released a report calling for action to address this problem. It will be too late for action when they see some of their facilities being overwhelmed by the increase in rising seas or by storms that may destroy some of our defense installations. But according to this amendment, they can't look at that. They can't make decisions based on the science that may come from these governmental and other scientific agencies. Well, I think that is science denial at its worst to say that the Defense Department cannot recognize damage caused by climate change. It looks like it is trying to overturn the laws of nature. So we would tie the hands of the Defense Department and tell them that even though we might have exacerbated heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, water- and vector-borne diseases, diseases which will pose greater risk to human health and lives around the world, and wheat and corn yields are already experiencing the negative impact and we have a larger risk of food security globally and regionally, if scientists tell us that, we are not allowed to have our Defense Department pay any heed to it." [Congressional Record, 5/21/14]
2015: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Prohibiting Future Trade Deals From Requiring Climate Change Obligations As Part Of A Customs And Trade Enforcement Bill. In December 2015, Schweikert missed a vote on legislation that modified future U.S. trade objectives to include a requirement that no trade deal could include climate change obligations as part of a customs and trade enforcement bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "amend[ed] the Trade Promotion Authority law (PL 114-26) enacted earlier this year to add more negotiating objectives for future trade agreements, including language: [...] To ensure that trade agreements 'do not establish obligations for the United States regarding greenhouse gas emissions measures, including obligations that require changes to U.S. laws or regulations or that would affect the implementation of such laws or regulations,' other than those fulfilling other negotiating objectives in TPA." The underlying legislation was a conference report that would have "formally establish[ed] the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and authorize[d] the CBP to use an automated import-export processing system [...] strengthen[ed] enforcement of intellectual property rights and [...] would [have] permanently ban[ned] state and local taxation of Internet access and ends grandfathered Internet access taxation in seven states." The vote was on the conference report. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 256 to 158. The Senate then passed the bill, which was signed into law by the president. [House Vote 693, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 644]
2015: Schweikert Was Absent During A Procedural Vote On Allowing Future Trade Deals To Require Climate Change Obligations As Part Of Future Trade Deals. In December 2015, Schweikert missed a vote on an amendment to a customs and trade enforcement bill that would allow future trade deals to allow climate change obligations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "allow[ed] climate change and human trafficking provisions in trade deals, and that would insist on the currency manipulation provisions included in the Senate amendments, defining currency undervaluation as an illegal subsidy and thereby making it subject to duty laws." The underlying legislation was a conference report that would was a trade enforcement and customs bill. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 172 to 239. [House Vote 692, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 644]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Trade Deals From Requiring Changes To U.S. Law Regarding Climate Change As Part Of Trade Enforcement Legislation. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that modified U.S. trade objectives to include a requirement that no trade deal could include climate change obligations as part of a trade enforcement bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "amend[ed] Trade Promotion Authority within HR 1314, once it is enacted, to add additional trade negotiating objectives, including language on: [...] Climate Change --- To ensure that trade agreements 'do not require changes to U.S. law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.'" The underlying legislation "formally establish[ed] U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in statute [...] [and] include[ed] a number of provisions dealing with enforcement of U.S. trade laws, including U.S. intellectual property rights and anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws." The vote was on a motion to concur with the Senate amendments with an amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 240 to 190. The House and Senate later conferenced, and a final version of the bill, with a similar provision, was signed into law. [House Vote 363, 6/12/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/12/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 644]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Protecting Tribal Coastal Areas From The Effects Of Climate-Change. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize or reauthorize a number of Commerce and Interior department programs and activities related to coastal community development and climate change adaptation." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 319-96. The bill was later passed by the Senate and signed by the President to become law. [House Vote 667, 12/10/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/10/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.729]
The Bill Authorized More Money To Protect Coasts From The Effects Of Climate Change. According to Bloomberg Environment, "The House passed a 10-bill legislative package on Dec. 10 to authorize more money to protect coasts from the consequences of climate change, including hundreds of millions of dollars to promote 'living' shorelines to combat coastal erosion [...] [it] would expand programs helping communities protect eroded coastlines and declining fisheries, most of which are managed by the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." [Bloomberg Environment, 12/10/19]
Rep. Jim McGovern: Communities Who Live Along The Coast Are "Especially At Risk For Climate-Related Disasters." According to Congressional Quarterly, "[Rep. Jim] McGovern said that the more than 126 million Americans who live along the coast are 'especially at risk for climate-related disasters,' including flooding, sea level rise and coastal erosion. 'In January this year, we saw the first Native American tribe forced to completely resettle due to climate fueled flooding and erosion' he said. 'If we do nothing, they won't be the last.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/19]
Republicans Opposed The Bill, Stating That The New Provisions Would Only Duplicate Existing Efforts. According to Bloomberg Environmental, "Republicans said the new authorizations would duplicate existing efforts and could harm current programs [...] [Rep. Garret Graves] added that Congress should focus on the management and implementation of the programs, not 'put bows around a lot of things that are largely already happening.'" [Bloomberg Environment, 12/10/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Stating That The Paris Climate Agreement Says That Climate Justice Should Be Considered. In May 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "state[d] that the Paris Agreement urges parties to consider 'climate justice' and the impacts of climate change on local communities, migrants, children, and other 'people in vulnerable situations.'" The underlying legislation would have prevented the U.S. from withdrawing the Paris Climate Agreement. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 231 to 190. The House later passed the underlying legislation. [House Vote 175, 5/2/19; Congressional Quarterly, 5/2/19; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 169; Congressional Actions, H.R. 9]
2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Prohibit The Use Of Federal Funds For The Department Of Energy's Climate Model Development And Validation Program. In May 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would prohibit the use of federal funds for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, "prohibit funds made available under the act from being used for the Energy Department's Climate Model Development and Validation program." The underlying bill was the House's FY 2016 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on agreement to the amendment and the House passed the amendment 224 to 184. The underlying bill was reported to the Senate appropriations committee, but was later turned into an FY 2017 continuing resolution. [House Vote 209, 5/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15; CRS Summary of H.R. 2028, 5/21/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 203; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
The Department Of Energy's Climate Model Development And Validation Program Worked To Increase The Reliability Of Climate Models. According to a floor speech by Rep. Kaptur, "The goal of the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, which we know is happening, extreme weather events, and drought. Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. That is absolutely irresponsible." [Congressional Record, 4/30/15]
Department Of Energy: Climate Model Programs "Determine The Impacts And Possible Mitigation Of Climate Change." According to the Department of Energy's Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, "Climate and Earth System Modeling is a research area for the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research within the Department of Energy's Office of Science. CESM consists of three research programs: Earth System Modeling, Regional & Global Climate Modeling, and Integrated Assessment Research. These programs focus on the development, evaluation, and use of regional and global models, development of Earth system models, and development of integrated assessment models to determine the impacts and possible mitigation of climate change." [Department of Energy, Accessed 10/2/15]
Rep. Kaptur (D-OH): Amendment Represented "Climate Science Denial At Its Worst." According to a floor speech by Rep. Kaptur, "The Gosar amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst. [...] Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. That is absolutely irresponsible." [Congressional Record, 4/30/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Stating Climate Change Impacts Human Health And The Environment. In March 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would add language stating that Congress accepts the EPA's findings that greenhouse gas pollution contributes to long-lasting climate changes that can impact human health and the environment." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 221. [House Vote 103, 3/6/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3826]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Providing Over $3 Billion To Address Climate Change, Including $1.6 Billion For A Green Climate Fund. In July 2021, Schweikert voted against the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide $4.6 billion for global health programs, including $760 million for family planning and reproductive health programs. It would provide over $3 billion to address climate change and other environmental issues, including $1.6 billion for a multilateral Green Climate Fund to help developing countries address climate change, $269 million for renewable energy programs, and $125 million to combat wildlife trafficking." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-212, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The bill ultimately became law. [House Vote 243, 7/28/21; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4373]
2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Affirmed That Communities Of Color And Low-Income Communities Face The Greatest Climate Change And Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Strategic Production Response Act, which would "specify that the bill may not be construed to deny that communities of color and low-wealth communities 'face the greatest harms due to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.'" The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 211 to 217. [House Vote 62, 1/27/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/23; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 38; Congressional Actions, H.R. 21]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Providing Tax Credits To Incentivize Climate Change Mitigation Practices, Including Credits For Renewable Energy And Carbon Capture Facilities, Alternative Fuel Usage And Energy Efficiency Upgrades At Residential Properties, And Establishing Electric Vehicle Purchase Credits. In November 2021, Schweikert voted against the Build Back Better act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establish or expand a number of tax credits to incentivize actions by businesses and individuals to mitigate climate change, including to expand credits for renewable energy production and facilities, carbon capture facilities, use of alternative fuels and energy efficiency improvements at residential properties; and to establish individual credits for the purchase of electric vehicles." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-213. [House Vote 385, 11/19/21; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Prohibited Funds From Being Used For Payments Under The Paris Climate Agreement. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill provisions allowing funds provided by the bill to be used for payments under the Paris Climate Agreement and prohibiting such funds to be used for U.S. withdrawal from the agreement." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 184-241. [House Vote 336, 6/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.352; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing The Interior Secretary To Consider Climate Change In Decisions Regarding Conservation And Recreation On Public Lands. In February 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would allow the Interior secretary to retain the authority to consider climate change in making decisions related to conservation and recreation on public lands." The vote was on the amendment. The house rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 242. [House Vote 39, 2/5/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/5/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3590]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Several Climate-Related And Energy Efficiency Programs And Provisions Established By The Inflation Reduction Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "repeal certain climate-related programs established by the 2022 budget reconciliation package, including the $27 billion 'Greenhouse Gas Reduction' fund to support low- and zero-carbon projects, a program imposing fees on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling sites on federal lands, and energy rebate programs to incentivize energy-efficient homes and buildings." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225 to 204, thus the bill was sent to the Senate for their consideration. [House Vote 182, 3/30/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The Bill Would Repeal A $4.5 Billion Home Electrification Rebate Program, An EPA Program That Would Support Emission-Reduction Efforts Through National Green Banking, And A Methane That Would Charge Fossil Fuel Companies For Emitting Potent Greenhouse Gases. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Central in the bill is language that would repeal several climate programs in the 2022 climate, health and tax law (PL 117-169), including a $4.5 billion home electrification rebate program, an EPA program to build out national green banking to support emission-reduction efforts and a methane program that would charge fossil energy companies for emitting the highly potent greenhouse gas." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]
The Bill Sought To Repeal A $27 Billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund That Boosts Clean Energy And Repeal A Fee On Oil And Gas Methane Emissions. According to Politico, "First, they sought to deliver a blow against Biden by repealing provisions of Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, such as the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to boost clean energy and a fee imposed on oil and gas methane emissions." [Politico, 3/30/23]
The Bill Passed After The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Urged Action To Swiftly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions And End Burning Fossil Fuels To Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage comes a little more than a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading body of climate scientists, warned humanity must work swiftly to slash greenhouse gas emissions and stop burning fossil fuels to avert catastrophic rapid climate change." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]