2017: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Changed The Bureau Of Land Management Procedures For Resource Management Plans. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for a resolution that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "disapproves the Resource Management Planning rule issued by the Interior Department on Dec. 12, 2016 (commonly known as Planning 2.0), which modifies the Bureau of Land Management's process for developing resource management plans for public lands. The measures provides that the rule will have no force or effect." The vote was on the legislation. The House agreed to the legislation by a vote of 234 to 186. The president later signed the legislation into law. The president later signed the legislation into law. [House Vote 83, 2/7/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/3/17; The Hill, 2/7/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 44]
The Rule Was An Attempt For The BLM To Address A Wider Variety Of Issues, Including Wildfire Risks And The Appropriate Demand For Renewable Energy Sources; Rule Also Emphasized Using High Quality Data. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The final rule is intended to more readily address a wider variety of issues and possible impacts, including wildfire risk, wildlife habitat, appropriate development or the demand for renewable and non-renewable energy sources. It emphasizes the role of using high-quality information in the planning process, including the best available scientific information, and the importance of evaluating resource, environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions at the outset of planning." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/3/17]
Supporters Of The Rule Argued That The Rule Will Make BLM Provide A More Holistic Approach To Resource Management. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the resolution, mainly Democrats, say the rule will provide a more holistic approach to BLM resource management planning and allow the agency to respond to critical environmental, economic and social changes in a timely manner. They praise provisions intended to gather more information at the outset of a project and to work more closely with local communities in an open and transparent manner, saying it will help create more resilient public lands and habitats in the face of climate change. The rule, they say, effectively gives the public a better seat at the table in managing public lands." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/3/17]
Rule Updated Decades Old Guidelines; Because A CRA Prevents Similar Rules In The Future, The Old Rules Would Remain In Place. According to The Hill, "Conservation groups and most Democrats support the rule, saying it would update decades-old guidelines within the Interior Department and disputing GOP claims that it would diminish input from individuals and local governments. In a letter to lawmakers on Monday, 13 groups noted that CRA resolutions prevent agencies from writing similar rules in the future, meaning BLM's management policies could be frozen for years. [...] 'If Congress wants to return to a system that was plagued with lawsuits, conflict, and the outsized influence of big oil companies then this is the way to go. If they want to maintain a system that allows for both energy development and protecting public lands, then they should keep Planning 2.0.'" [The Hill, 2/7/17]
2019: Schweikert Voted For A Federal Lands Bill That Permanently Reauthorized The Land And Water Conservation Fund, Created New National Monuments, Expanded A Number Of National Parks And Added 1.3 Million Acres Of New Wilderness. In February 2019, Schweikert voted for a landmark federal lands bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with at least 40 percent of the fund to be used for state projects, at least 40 percent for federal projects, and at least 3 percent toward increasing recreational access to federal lands. It would also reauthorize, through 2023, the national volcano monitoring system and the U.S. Geological Survey. Through 2022, it would reauthorize several programs related to wildlife conservation, invasive species management, and prevention of illegal poaching and trafficking. The bill also includes a number of provisions related to the designation, regulation, exchange, and management of federal public lands and forests. It would make additions and boundary adjustments to several national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It would authorize and establish procedures for the transfer of water and power facilities from the Bureau of Reclamation to state and local entities and would authorize a Reclamation water management project in south-central Washington State. It also contains provisions related to federal land access for hunting and ordering studies on federal land designation, among other provisions." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 363 to 62. The Senate had already agreed to the legislation, thus the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 95, 2/26/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/26/19; Congressional Actions, S. 47]
The Bill Expanded National Parks By 42,000 Acres, The National Trail System By 2,600 Miles, And Added 88,000 Acres To Death Valley National Park. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, "The bill will expand national parks by more than 42,000 acres, expand the National Trails System by 2,600 miles and add 621 miles into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Create 1.3 million acres of new designated wilderness, of which approximately 88,000 acres will be managed by the Park Service, as part of Death Valley National Park. [...] Establish six new national heritage areas that are managed by the Park Service." [National Parks Conservation Association, 2/26/19]
The Legislation Added National Monuments Such As Medgar And The Myrlie Evers Home National Monument In Mississippi And The Jurassic National Monument In Utah. According to the AP, "The new monuments are the Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument in Mississippi; the Mill Springs and Camp Nelson national monuments in Kentucky; the former Saint Francis Dam site in Southern California; and the Jurassic National Monument in Utah." [AP, 3/12/19]
The Legislation Prevented Mining Near Yellowstone National Park And North Cascades National Park. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, "Prevent new mining operations on 370,000 acres outside of North Cascades and Yellowstone National Parks." [National Parks Conservation Association, 2/26/19]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Designate An Ancient Cypress Forest Off The Gulf Of Mexico As The "Alabama Underwater Forest National Marine Sanctuary" And To Prohibit Dredging Below The Surface And Drilling Or Coring The Seabed. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill, as amended, that would designate the ancient cypress forest in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Alabama as the 'Alabama Underwater Forest National Marine Sanctuary.' It would prohibit the cutting, removing or subsurface salvage of the cypress trees. It would also prohibit activities such as dredging below the surface, drilling or coring the seabed or lowering, laying, positioning or raising any type of seabed cable or cable-laying device. It would provide exemptions for certain activities, such as fishing, diving or similar commercial and recreational activities. It would also provide an exemption for necessary operations of public vessels. It would allow the development or production of oil or gas projects authorized before the bill's enactment." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 349 to 19. [House Vote 336, 7/8/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 897]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Allow The Transfer Of Federal Lands To State And Tribal Groups To Have No Cost From A Budget Scoring Perspective. In January 2017, Schweikert voted for House rules that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively shield[ed] from Congressional Budget Office scoring any legislation that would require or authorize the conveyance of federal land to a state, local government or tribal entity. By not requiring the budget analysis, the affected legislation wouldn't need offsets or budgetary pay-fors that can trip up a lands bill before it hits the House floor. According to the provision, land transfers 'shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.'" The vote was on the resolution. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 234 to 193. [House Vote 6, 1/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/17; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 5]
Federal Land Can Generate Receipts, Including Potential Land Sales. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Federal land can generate receipts from a variety of sources, including natural resources like coal or timber on the land, from activities such as grazing and utility right-of-way fees and from potential land sales from an authorized federal agency." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/17]
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ): "This Proposed Rule Change Would Make It Easier To Implement This Plan By Allowing The Congress To Give Away Every Single Piece Of Property We Own, For Free, And Pretend We Have Lost Nothing Of Any Value." According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Democrats, led by Natural Resources ranking member Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., called foul on the proposal, saying it is 'outrageous and absurd' that Congress would give away federal land 'for free.' 'This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value,' Grijalva said in a statement. 'Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.' Grijalva said local governments are unlikely to have the necessary resources to effectively manage the land, and this type of transfer would lead to state land sales. 'The proposal is one more example of the Trump Republicans' plans to use federal resources to enrich wealthy developers by making it easier for them to get their hands on invaluable federal lands currently owned by, and open to, all Americans,' Grijalva said." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/17]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Allow Native American Tribes To Have The Right Of First Refusal On Purchasing Lands. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "allow[ed] Indian tribes to have the right of first refusal on purchasing lands. The amendment would require land to be sold at fair market value instead of $1.25 per acre as under the bill." The underlying bill would have required the Bureau of Land Management to sell current and adjacent landowners about 30,000 acres of federal land along the Red River, which is part of the border between Texas and Oklahoma. The vote was on the amendment. The House accepted the amendment by a vote of 246 to 183. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 684, 12/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/4/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 876; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2130]
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): Bill Gives Texas And Oklahoma The Power To Conduct A Survey To See What Land BLM Owns Near The Red River And Then Sell It; Tribes That Formally Held The Land Should Be Allowed To Have The Right Of First Refusal. In a floor speech, Rep. Cole said, "I do, however, still have serious concerns about the unintended consequences that the suggested message for resolving this issue will most certainly have on Indian tribes in my district, specifically the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache. All three tribes oppose the bill and support this amendment. This bill gives Texas and Oklahoma the power to conduct a survey, the goal of which is to ascertain the exact location of the portion of the Red River currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM land would be sold off in a three-step process. The first step provides for adverse possessors to apply for a patent to the BLM land. The second is a sale based on a right-of-first-refusal structure. The third provides for any remaining BLM land to be sold via a competitive sale process. The goal is to remove the Federal control that the BLM has over a 116-mile stretch of the river and, by the CBO's estimate, of roughly 30,000 acres. [..] Mr. Chairman, the first portion of this amendment is an easy fix. Providing tribal landowners with notice of their right to appeal a survey determination is a fundamental notion of due process. Tribes have been left out of such notice requirements in the bill, as currently drafted. The amendment also alters the right of first refusal structure for landowners to purchase BLM land by competitive sale. Indian tribes that formerly held reservation land in this part of Oklahoma, like the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, now have the right of first refusal for any competitive sale of BLM land that takes place pursuant to this legislation." [Congressional Record, 12/9/15]
Rep. Robert Bishop (R-UT): Amendment Alter's The Bill's Right Of First Refusal To Give Some Precedence. In a floor speech, Rep. Bishop said, "First, the amendment alters the bill's rights of first refusal procedure to give precedence to some above others, whether or not they have a reasonable claim to the land or hold an adjacent allotment. That is the key point right there: is the claim and the allotment adjacent. The bill, as is already written, already gives the right of first refusal to those landowners who are there as long as they own the adjacent land parcel. That should not be changed." [Congressional Record, 12/9/15]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Extend The Authority Of The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Regarding Marina Fees. In September 2023, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would extend by six years, through fiscal 2029, the authority of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest to collect, retain and use marina fees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 415 to 0, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 387, 9/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3324]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prohibit The Defunding Of The Bureau Of Land Management's Regulations On Fracking On Federal Lands. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have banned the defunding of the Bureau of Land Management's regulations on fracking on federal land. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "remove[d] the bill's prohibition on the Bureau of Land Management from implementing its final rule governing fracking on federal lands." The underlying bill made FY 2016 appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and other related agencies. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 179 to 250. [House Vote 402, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 576; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
Fracking Is The Process Of Drilling Down Into The Earth And Then A High-Pressure Water Mixture Is Directed At The Rock To Release The Gas. According to the BBC, "Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. The process is carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer. The process can create new pathways to release gas or can be used to extend existing channels." [BBC, 6/27/13]
The Underlying Bill Defunded The Rule Entitled "Hydraulic Fracturing On Federal And Indian Lands." According to Sec. 439 of HR.2822, "None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule entitled 'Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands' as published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2015 and March 30, 2015." [Congress.gov, HR. 2822] ]
The Department Of The Interior Said The Regulations Supported "Safe And Responsible" Fracking And Would "Protect Public Health." According to a press release from the Department of the Interior, "Following a robust and transparent public process that included more than 1.5 million public comments, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today released final standards that will support safe and responsible hydraulic fracturing on public and American Indian lands. The commonsense standards will improve safety and help protect groundwater by updating requirements for well-bore integrity, wastewater disposal and public disclosure of chemicals. [...] 'This rule will protect public health and the environment during and after hydraulic fracturing operations at a modest cost while both respecting the work previously done by the industry, the states and the tribes and promoting the adoption of more protective standards across the country,' said Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Janice Schneider. 'It will be implemented in the most efficient way possible to avoid duplication or unnecessary activities by industry, other regulators, or BLM staff. We know how important it is to get this right.'" [Press Release- Department of the Interior, 3/20/15]
The Bureau Of Land Management Issued Rules To Regulate Disclosure Of Chemicals And Disposal Of Wastewater Used In Fracking On Federal Lands. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The rules, issued by department's Bureau of Land Management in March, apply to oil and gas drilling on federal lands, which produce 11% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. and 5% of the oil, according to government data. [...] The rules set stricter standards for disposing of wastewater and disclosing chemicals used in fracking and were slated to go into effect this summer." [Wall Street Journal, 9/30/15]
BLM Estimated That Compliance Costs Will Be About $11,400 Per Well. According to the National Law Review, "BLM estimates that the compliance cost will be about $11,400 per well. BLM estimates that on average this equates to approximately 0.13 to 0.21 percent of the cost of drilling a well." [National Law Review, 3/27/15]
National Resources Defense Council: Fracking Harmed Human Health And The Health Of The Environment. According to the National Resources Defense Council, "The sector's growth is spurred by the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which often-dangerous chemicals are mixed with large quantities of water (or other base fluid) and sand and injected into wells at extremely high pressure. Unconventional development using advanced fracking methods poses threats to water, air, land, and the health of communities. Studies have shown dangerous levels of toxic air pollution near fracking sites; and oil and gas extraction have caused smog in rural areas at levels worse than downtown Los Angeles. Oil and gas production have been linked to increased risk of cancer and birth defects in neighboring areas; as well as to a risk of increased seismic activity. Constant massive truck traffic associated with large-scale development disrupts communities and creates significant hazards. The millions of gallons of water used in fracking operations not only strain water resources, but end up as vast amounts of contaminated wastewater. Fracking has been reported as a suspect in polluted drinking water around the country. And methane -- a potent climate change pollutant -- leaks rampantly throughout the extraction, processing, and distribution of oil and gas." [National Resources Defense Council, Viewed 10/22/15]
Fracking Allowed For Increased Energy Production In The United States. According to the National Geographic, "The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from the earth dates back to the 1940s, but only in the past few years has 'fracking' become an energy buzzword, alluding primarily to the shale gas boom in the United States and all of the controversy that has accompanied it. [...] In the United States, oil production last year reached its highest level in 14 years, thanks in part to output from North Dakota's Bakken Shale, and is expected to keep rising. Natural gas production, already at new highs thanks to shale gas, is expected to grow 44 percent in the U.S. between 2011 and 2040." [National Geographic, 11/11/13]
September 2015: Federal Judge Blocked Implementation Of The Rules. According to the Wall Street Journal, "A federal judge in Wyoming on Wednesday blocked Interior Department rules setting stricter standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands, the second set of major regulations from the Obama administration to be faulted in court in as many months. U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the rules, saying the Interior Department lacked the authority to issue them. [... ] 'Congress has not authorized or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing and, under our constitutional structure, it is only through congressional action that the BLM can acquire this authority,' the judge wrote." [Wall Street Journal, 9/30/15]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Included The Colorado Outdoor Recreation And Economy Act And The Grant Canyon Protection Act To The FY 2023 Defense Authorization Bill. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "add the text of the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act and the Grand Canyon Protection Act to the bill." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote 214-201. [House Vote 345, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 284; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
The Colorado Outdoor Recreation And Economy Act Provided For The Conservation Of Specified Lands In Colorado And Designated Several Areas As Federal lands. According to the Congressional Research Service, "This bill provides for the conservation of specified lands in Colorado. Specifically, the bill designates specified federal lands within the White River National Forest as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the proposed Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness as a potential wilderness area, the Tenmile Recreation Management Area, the Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area, the Williams Fork Mountains Wildlife Conservation Area, the Camp Hale National Historic Landscape, the Sheep Mountain and Liberty Bell East Special Management Areas, the Curecanti National Recreation Area, and the interpretive site located beside U.S. Route 24 as the Sandy Treat Overlook." [Congressional Research Service, 1/28/21]
The Colorado Outdoor Recreation And Economy Act Adjusted The Boundaries Of The White River National Forest And The Rocky Mountain National Park Potential Wilderness, And Included More Federal Lands Into The National Wilderness Preservation System. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The bill adjusts the boundary of the White River National Forest and the Rocky Mountain National Park Potential Wilderness. The bill provides for the inclusion of additional federal lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System." [Congressional Research Service, 1/28/21]
The Colorado Outdoor Recreation And Economy Act Cancelled The Thompson Divide Oil Or Gas Leases And Established The "Greater Thompson Divide Fugitive Mine Methane Use Pilot Program" To Mitigate Fugitive Methane Emissions And Reduce Emissions And Improve Air Quality. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The bill provides for the cancellation of all Thompson Divide oil or gas leases. The bill establishes the Greater Thompson Divide Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot Program to promote the capture, beneficial use, mitigation, and sequestration of fugitive methane emissions to reduce methane emissions, improve air quality, and improve public safety, among other things." [Congressional Research Service, 1/28/21]
The Grand Canyon Protection Act Withdraws Over 1 Million Acres Of Federal Lands In Arizona From Entry, Appropriation And Disposal Under Public Land Laws; Location, Entry And Patent Under Mining Laws; And Activities Under Mineral Leasing And Geothermal Laws And Mineral Materials Laws. According to the Congressional Research Service, "This bill withdraws 1,006,545 acres of federal lands in Arizona, including any land or interest in land acquired by the United States after enactment of this bill, from entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and mineral materials laws." [Congressional Research Service, 2/15/21]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal Energy Performance Standards That Require New Federal Buildings To Use No Fossil Fuels As An Energy Source By 2030 As Part Of A Bill That Overhauled Federal Energy Policy. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that repealed the requirement that new federal buildings receive all of their energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "repeal[ed] energy efficiency performance standards under current law that require new federal buildings and those undergoing major renovations as of 2030 to be powered entirely through non-fossil-fuel energy sources (i.e., that the building's energy source not be fueled by coal or natural gas). That requirement for the energy performance design of federal buildings was enacted in 2007." The underlying legislation was, according to Reuters, "a wide-ranging bill on energy [...] that includes a measure to repeal the 40-year-old oil export ban. [...] The bill would also speed the permitting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and improve the aging power grid." The vote was on passage. The House passed the measure by a vote of 249 to 174. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 672, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15; Reuters, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8]
The Legislation Also Extended For Two Years The Rule That Federal Buildings Reduce Their Energy Consumption. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would, however, extend for two years the requirement that federal building reduce their energy consumption per gross square foot as compared with FY 2003. In FY 2016, this reduction must equal 33%, and in 2017 it must equal 36% of 2003 levels. (The current requirement terminated in FY 2015, with a 30% reduction required.) The Energy Department must analyze the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of extending the energy savings targets to future years." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
Bill Opponents Claimed That The Bill Ignored Climate Change. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, mainly Democrats, agree that with the changing landscape of U.S. energy the nation's energy infrastructure should be updated and modernized, but they argue that the bill effectively continues past policies and keeps the nation dependent on fossil fuels, rather than taking advantage of increases of clean, renewable energy. In fact, they say, the bill totally ignores the growing dangers of climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels and would actually act to increase fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For The Resilient Federal Forests Act, Which Reduced The Number Of Forestry Activities Subject To An Environmental Impact Statement. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for for the Resilient Federal Forests Act to improve wildfire capabilities and forest health on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have, "The measure provides for expedited actions by federal agencies by expanding the types of forestry activities that can occur without environmental impact statements (such as certain salvage operations and addressing insect and disease infestations) and by accelerating environmental reviews for salvage operations and reforestation activities after catastrophic events. It limits legal challenges to certain agency actions and seeks to discourage litigation by requiring plaintiffs to post a bond to cover the government's legal costs when challenging certain collaborative management activities and by preventing plaintiffs from recovering attorneys' fees if they win." The measure was known as the Resilient Federal Forests Act. The vote was on the measure. The House passed the bill 262 to 167. The bill was received by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and no further action was taken. [House Vote 428, 7/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2647]
The Measure Also Modified Federal Forest Management Practices And Seeks To End Funding Through Borrowing For Fire Suppression Purposes. According to Congressional; Quarterly, "This bill modifies federal forest management practices to increase timber production on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands as a means of promoting greater forest health and reducing wildfires, and it seeks to end the 'borrowing' of fire prevention funding for fire suppression efforts by providing funding to fight certain catastrophic wildfires from FEMA's disaster relief fund. [Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/15]
Over The Past 15 Years, There Has Been An Increase In Catastrophic Wildfires, Which Some Attribute To Decrease In Timber Production. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Over the past 15 years, there has been a significant increase in catastrophic wildfires, which negatively affect watershed health, wildlife habitat, property and human life. Many attribute the increases in catastrophic wildfires to a decrease in timber production from those federal lands; without the winnowing that occurs when large trees are removed, the closely packed trees are more susceptible to fire and their proximity allows flames to spread quickly. Dense forest is also more prone to disease and insect infestation." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/15]
Timber Production Has Decreased Due To Environmental Concerns And Government Funding Shortfalls. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Timber production has decreased for a variety of reasons, including lengthy environmental reviews of commercial logging proposals and lawsuits by environmental groups that target certain forest planning decisions and seek to stop logging projects. Also contributing to the problem has been the diversion of funding away from federal activities that promote forest health and mitigate wildfire risk (such as "fuel reduction" efforts) because the Forest Service and Interior Department have been forced to "borrow" those funds to battle large wildfires." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Measure Fails To Protect The Environment And Will Effectively Block Concerned Citizens From Effectively Challenging Rich Corporations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill say that it fails to protect the environment because it allows too many exemptions from environmental reviews, permits immediate logging after wildfire disasters, changes the goals of forest management and disregards the right of citizens to confront their government. They say it significantly expands the acreage in which non-reviewed logging activities can occur, including by permitting clear-cutting of forests, which is currently not allowed. They argue that the bill's restrictions on legal activities, including the requirement to post bonds when challenging collaborative projects and the ban on recovering attorneys' fees if plaintiffs win, will block concerned citizens and allow only corporations with deep pockets to make legal challenges." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/15] ]
Statement Of Administration Policy: The Administration Strongly Opposes The Measure Because It Does Not Fully Fix The Fire Budget Problem, Undermines Collaborative Forest Restoration And Environmental Safeguards. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2647. The most important step Congress can take to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration and management of the national forests and Department of the Interior (DOI) lands is to fix fire suppression funding and provide additional capacity for the Forest Service and DOI to manage the Nation's forests and other public lands. H.R. 2647 falls short of fixing the fire budget problem and contains other provisions that will undermine collaborative forest restoration, environmental safeguards, and public participation across the National Forest System and public lands." [Statement of Administration Policy, 7/8/15]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Limit Sandy Relief Funding From Being Used To Purchase Additional Federal Lands. In January 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to the League of Conservation Voters, "inhibit[ed] Hurricane Sandy response efforts by barring the Secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture from using any of the funds in the bill to purchase additional public lands." The underlying bill was Hurricane Sandy relief funding. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 223 to 198. The final version of the legislation, which became law, included the amendment's policy. [House Vote 21, 1/15/13; League of Conservation Voters, 2013 Scorecard; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Effectively Prohibiting New Mining Or Mineral Production Activities In Colorado By Designating Land As Wilderness For Recreation Management And Conservation. In October 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modify land use authorities for over 400,000 acres of land in Colorado, particularly in areas in or along the Continental Divide, San Juan Mountains, Thompson Divide, and Curecanti National Recreation Area. The bill would effectively prohibit any new mining or mineral production activities on approximately 61,000 acres of federal lands in the San Juan Mountains and approximately 200,000 acres of federal lands within the Thompson Divide. Specifically, it would withdraw the lands from eligibility for activities permitted under federal laws governing public lands, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing. The bill would designate or expand a number of wildlife conservation, wilderness, recreation and other management areas on federal lands, and it would modify or expand a number of Interior Department land use authorities." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 227-182. [House Vote 609, 10/31/19; Congressional Quarterly, 10/31/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.823]
The Bill Expanded Land Use Protection For 400,000 Acres Of Federal Lands in Colorado. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The land protection bill would expand various land use protections for roughly 400,000 acres of federal lands in Colorado, including by prohibiting new mining or mineral development leases, establishing new wilderness areas or expanding existing areas, and designating certain lands for recreation, conservation, and special management." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/26/19]
Democrats And Republican Disagreed On Whether Or Not There Was A "Local Consensus" To Protect Federal Lands. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Democrats say it represents a locally driven effort among a diverse set of stakeholders with a shared interest in providing long-term protections for key public lands in Colorado. Republicans say it does not reflect a local consensus in the state that is needed for enacting sizable lands bills." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/26/19]
The White House Threatened To Veto The Bill, Citing Concerns About Its Effects On Local Economies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The White House also issued a veto threat Monday opposing the Colorado land preservation bill citing concerns about the negative impact the bill would have on local economies." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/26/19]
Despite Support From Coloradans To Protect Public Lands, Cory Gardner Has Not Supported Wilderness Legislation. According to The Wilderness Society. "'Coloradans love public lands and want to see more of them protected especially in the face of a changing climate and the nature crisis. Conservationists, ranchers and sportsmen around Colorado will celebrate the vote by the House and turn our attention to the Senate,' said Jim Ramey, TWS' Colorado state director. 'Senator Cory Gardner is the only senator from Colorado in the last half-century who has not sponsored wilderness legislation. As Colorado's only member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it's time for Senator Gardner to heed his constituents' calls and work with Senator Bennet to get the CORE Act across the finish line.'" [The Wilderness Society, 10/30/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Effectively Prohibiting New Mining Or Mineral Production Activities In The Grand Canyon. In October 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively prohibit any new mining or mineral production activities on approximately one million acres of federal lands in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona. Specifically, it would withdraw the lands from eligibility for activities permitted under federal laws governing public lands, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 236-185. [House Vote 602, 10/30/19; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1373]
The Bill Countered Efforts By The Trump Administration To Boost The Uranium Industry By Mining On Federal Lands. According to The Hill, "The House passed legislation Wednesday that would ban mining near the Grand Canyon, a move designed to counter any efforts by the Trump administration to bolster the uranium industry by mining on federal lands. The bill [...] would make permanent a mining moratorium on more than 1 million acres in northern Arizona surrounding the iconic national park." [The Hill, 10/30/19]
The Wilderness Society: Uranium Mining Threatens To Pollute Aquifers" And Could "Contaminate Drinking Water Supplies" And "Destroy Crucial Wildlife Habitat." According to The Wilderness Society, "In Arizona, uranium mining in the sensitive and stunningly beautiful area around Grand Canyon National Park threatens to pollute aquifers that feed springs and streams in the Grand Canyon. Further, such mining activity could contaminate drinking water supplies, destroy crucial wildlife habitat and disrupt migration corridors, and devastate the local tourism-based economy." [The Wilderness Society, 10/30/19]
Rep. Raúl Grijalva: The Trump Administrations Pushing To Open Federal Lands "To Exploitation On Behalf Of A Few Wealthy Mining Interests." According to The Hill, "'These critical protections are under threat from the Trump administration under the guise of energy dominance and fabricated arguments of national security they've continued to push for these lands to be opened to exploitation on behalf of a few wealthy mining interests,' [Rep. Raúl Grijalva] said Tuesday during House floor debate." [The Hill, 10/30/19]
Republicans Argued The Bill Would Stifle Economic Opportunities And Called It A "Federal Land Grab". According to The Hill, "Democrats see the bill as a vital step toward protecting sensitive habitat near the Grand Canyon from the 'imminent threat' of mining. But Republicans argued the bill would stifle economic opportunities for the rural areas of the state [...] 'This bill is very cleverly named to make it sound like it's safeguarding the Grand Canyon, something I believe we all support,' [Rep. Bruce] Westerman said on the House floor Tuesday. 'But when we look at what it does, we quickly see it has very little to do with the Grand Canyon. Instead, it's a federal land grab that would lock up approximately 1 million acres of land in northern Arizona and permanently ban mineral development.'" [The Hill, 10/30/19]
NRDC: This Legislation Was "Critical" To Protecting Public Lands. According to the NRDC, "At a time when the Trump administration is carving up our public lands and auctioning them off to corporate interests who'd destroy them for profit, this legislation is critical. These special places in the American west reflect our country's cultural roots, offer a place for recreation and reflection, and include huge swaths of wilderness that help us fight climate change." [NRDC, 10/30/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Effectively Prohibiting New Mining Or Mineral Production Activities On Federal Lands Near The Chaco Culture Natural Historical Park In New Mexico. In October 2019, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively prohibit any new mining or mineral production activities on federal lands within 10 miles of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico. Specifically, it would withdraw the lands from eligibility for activities permitted under federal laws governing public lands, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing. The withdrawal would not prohibit the conveyance or exchange of such federal lands to or with Indian tribes. The bill would also require the termination of existing oil and gas leases on federal lands where extraction has not begun by the end of the initial lease." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 245-174. [House Vote 597, 10/30/19; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.2181]
The Bill Would Made A Temporary Ban On Mining Near The Chaco Canyon Permanent. According to The Wilderness Society, "In the case of Chaco Canyon, an ancient tribal historical and archaeological site, earlier this year the Interior Department granted a temporary reprieve on harmful extractive activity on and near this ancient tribal historical and archaeological site [...] However permanent protection [required] congressional approval [...] 'Chaco Canyon's irreplaceable treasures need more than temporary protections. The House's passage of proactive legislation will help ensure future generations inherit a place that has not been permanently scarred by unchecked energy development,' said Michael Casaus, New Mexico state director of The Wilderness Society." [The Wilderness Society, 10/30/19]
NRDC: This Legislation Was "Critical" To Protecting Public Lands. According to the NRDC, "At a time when the Trump administration is carving up our public lands and auctioning them off to corporate interests who'd destroy them for profit, this legislation is critical. These special places in the American west reflect our country's cultural roots, offer a place for recreation and reflection, and include huge swaths of wilderness that help us fight climate change." [NRDC, 10/30/19]
The Bill Was Supported By All Members Of The New Mexico Delegation And The Navajo Nation. According to The Wilderness Society, "The Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act would protect federal lands surrounding Chaco Canyon from oil and gas development permanently. The bill is supported by every member of the New Mexico congressional delegation, the All Pueblo Council of Governors, and the Navajo Nation." [The Wilderness Society, 10/30/19]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Develop A Visitor Facility, Administrative Facility And A Parking Lot For The Minuteman Missile National Historic Site In South Dakota. In September 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "modif[ied] the boundaries of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota to include land currently administered as part of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, on which a visitor facility, administrative site and parking lot would be established." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 414 to 5. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 455, 9/10/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/10/13; Congressional Actions, S. 459]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Requiring National Monuments Receive Congressional Approval. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Presidential Power To Declare National Monuments. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] the bill's provisions that would bar the president from declaring national monuments in certain counties." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 202 to 225. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 437, 7/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1312; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Designate For San Geronimo Del Boqueron As An Affiliated Area Of The National Parks. In November 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would designate Fort San Geronimo del Boqueron in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as an affiliated area of the National Park System." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 359 to 24. [House Vote 600, 11/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 11/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 359]
2022: Schweikert Voted To Reauthorize The National Park Foundation With $15 Million Annually Through FY 2030. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the National Park Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2022, which would "reauthorize the National Park Foundation for seven years and triple the annual authorization amount, authorizing $15 million annually through fiscal 2030." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 397-22, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 378, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7693]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Provided $3.4 Billion For The National Park Service. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill provides $3.4 billion for the National Park Service --- $155 million more than FY 2019 and $636 million more than the request. The vast majority, $2.4 billion, is for operation and maintenance of national parks, $66 million (3%) more than FY 2019 and $151 million (7%) more than requested." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 297-120. The Senate later passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 689, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing Another Government Shutdown And Providing $3.2 Billion For The NPS. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2019 consolidated appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This Conference Summary describes the agreement on H J Res 31, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, which provides detailed, full-year funding for all seven remaining FY 2019 spending bills ---thereby completing the FY 2019 appropriations process. The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 300 to 128. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 87, 2/14/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 31]
The Bill Appropriated $3.2 Billion For The NPS. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure provides $3.2 billion for the National Park Service --- $20 million (1%) more than FY 2018 and $521 million (19%) more than the request. The vast majority, $2.5 billion, is for operation and maintenance of national parks, $25 million (1%) more than FY 2018 and $78 million (3%) more than requested. Included in that amount is $822 million for facility operations and maintenance ($12 million more than FY 2018 and $40 million more than requested), and $549 million for park support ($13 million more than FY 2018 and $42 million more than requested)." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19]
The Bill Re-Designated The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore To Be The Indiana Dunes National Park. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement renames the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as the Indiana Dunes National Park, and it designates the rest area on the Mount Vernon Trail within the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Fort Hunt, Va., as the Peter B. Webster III Memorial Area." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Increase Federal Funds For The National Park Service For Maintenance By $2.4 Million. In July 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for the operations and maintenance of the National Park Service by $2.4 million and would decrease funding for land acquisition activities by an equal amount." The underlying bill was an FY 2019 Interior, Environment and Financial Services appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 237. [House Vote 341, 7/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 870; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6174]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $3.2 Billion To The National Park Service, A Nine Percent Increase Over FY 2017. In March 2018, Schweikert voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
Legislation Appropriated $3.2 Billion For The NPS With $2.5 Billion For Operation And Maintenance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure provides $3.2 billion for the National Park Service --- $270 million (9%) more than FY 2017. The vast majority, $2.5 billion, is for operation and maintenance of national parks, $53 million (2%) more than FY 2017. Included in that amount is $810 million for facility operations and maintenance ($31 million more than FY 2017), although the House committee report noted that it retains $50 million targeted to park operations and maintenance to help reduce the deferred maintenance backlog." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18]
Bill Appropriated $360 Million For Construction Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The total also includes $360 million for Park Service construction projects, $150 million (72%) more than FY 2017. It provides $181 million for Park Service land acquisition activities, $19 million (12%) more than FY 2017. Of that amount, $124 million is for land acquisition grants to states (13% more than FY 2017). The Park Service itself would have $57 million for its own land acquisition activities of which $26 million would be for the actual cost of acquiring land (23% more than FY 2017)." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Transfer Forest Service Land To The Salt River Project. In November 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for "motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended, that would transfer a portion of National Forest Service land adjacent to the Salt River Project in Arizona to be used for development, generation and transmission of electricity as part of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. It would direct the Agriculture Department to prepare a map depicting the boundary of the land. The bill would require new electrical energy facilities built on the land to conform with Bureau of Reclamation standards, subject to Interior Department review and approval. It would also specify that the covered land would be permanently withdrawn from public land, mining, mineral leasing, mineral materials and geothermal leasing laws." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 384 to 1. [House Vote 599, 11/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 11/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1607]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Included Language From The Protecting America's Wilderness And Public Lands Act And Included The Cerro De La Olla Wilderness Establishment Act To The FY 2023 Defense Authorization Bill. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "add the text of Titles I - VI of the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, and add the text of the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote 219-207. [House Vote 346, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 285; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
The Cerro De La Olla Wilderness Establishment Act Designated Certain Federal Land In New Mexico To Be Known As "Cerro De La Olla Wilderness." According to the Congressional Research Service, "This bill designates specified federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Taos County, New Mexico, comprising 13,103 acres in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument, to be known as the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness." [Congressional Research Service, 2/2/21]
he Protecting America's Wilderness And Public Lands Act Provided For The Preservation, Conservation And Recreational Use Of Federal Lands In Several States. According to the Congressional Research Service, "This bill provides for the preservation, conservation, and recreational use of public lands, including in Arizona, California, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and the U.S. Virgin Islands." [Congressional Research Service, 2/26/21]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Designating 1.4 Million Acres Of Federal Land As Wilderness Areas. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 NDAA that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "designate approximately 1.4 million acres of federal lands in California, Colorado and Washington as new, expanded or potential wilderness areas and designate approximately 1,221 river miles in California and Washington as wild, scenic or recreational rivers. Among other provisions, it would establish a public-private partnership to facilitate environmental remediation of federal lands and waters in California damaged by illegal marijuana operations and protect a number of existing rights and usages on designated lands, including to provide for continued military activities such as helicopter overflights." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 234-179. [House Vote 146, 7/21/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/20; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.837; Congressional Actions, H.R.6395]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Protecting 1.36 Million Acres Of Federal Lands In California, Colorado, And Washington By Designating Them As Wilderness Areas. In February 2020, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "designate approximately 1.36 million acres of federal lands in California, Colorado, and Washington as new, expanded, or potential wilderness areas and designate approximately 1,221 river miles in California and Washington as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. Specifically, the bill would make such designations for approximately 630,700 acres of federal lands and 756 river miles in California; approximately 660,000 acres of federal lands in Colorado; and approximately 126,540 acres of federal lands and 465 river miles in and around Olympic National Park in Washington. It would also designate approximately 1.2 million acres of additional federal lands in California as restoration, recreation, and other protected areas." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 231-183. [House Vote 69, 2/12/20; Congressional Quarterly, 2/12/20; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2546]
The Bill Prohibited Logging, Mining, And Drilling In The Designated Areas. According to The Hill, "Under the bill, 'logging, mining and drilling' would be prohibited on the land and no new roads or infrastructure would be able to be built in the areas. Nearly 1,000 miles of river would also be added to the National Wild and Scenic River System." [The Hill, 2/12/20]
Democrats Believed It Would Boost Local Economies And Help To Combat Climate Change. According to The Hill, "'They will provide a boost to the nearby economy and help grow our nation's multibillion-dollar industry that directly supports thousands of jobs across the U.S. Perhaps most importantly, in preserving these lands, the bill will do what we need to do to further fulfill the House's commitment to stake steps to combat the climate crisis,' [Rep. Diana DeGette] added." [The Hill, 2/12/20]
Republicans Argued The Bill Would Limit Public Access To The Land And Increase The Risk Of Wildfires. According to The Hill, "critics of the measure raised concerns that the new protections could have unintended negative consequences, arguing it could limit public access to the land and increase the risk of wildfires in the areas." [The Hill, 2/12/20]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Sandy Relief Funding From Being Used To Repair Damage At The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. In January 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to the League of Conservation Voters, "eliminate[d] funding in the bill to help repair damage that Hurricane Sandy inflicted on the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge." The underlying bill was Hurricane Sandy relief funding. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 216 to 205. The final version of the legislation, which became law, included the amendment's policy. [House Vote 19, 1/15/13; League of Conservation Voters, 2013 Scorecard; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]