2023: Schweikert Voted For A GOP Debt Limit Package, Which Would Include The Lower Energy Costs Act To Boost Domestic Production Of Fossil Fuels And Critical Minerals, Streamline Natural Gas Pipeline Construction, And Repeal Biden Administration Energy And Climate Change Policies. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, which would "also include a range of provisions to limit federal spending, as well as the text of a previously passed energy and permitting policy package. [...] It would also include the full text of the House-passed energy and permitting package (HR 1) that would require a number of actions to boost the domestic production of fossil fuels and certain critical minerals and accelerate the construction of natural gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure, while reversing or repealing certain presidential actions taken and laws enacted during the Biden administration related to energy policy and climate change." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 215, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 199, 4/26/23; Congressional Quarterly, 4/26/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2811]
2023: Schweikert Voted For The Lower Energy Costs Act, Which Sought To Boost Domestic Production Of Fossil Fuels And Critical Minerals, Streamline Natural Gas Pipeline Construction, And Repeal Biden Administration Energy And Climate Change Policies. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "require a number of actions to boost the domestic production of fossil fuels and critical minerals, accelerate the construction of natural gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and reverse or repeal certain recent policies related to energy and climate change." 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 Generally Decrease Federal Shares And Increase State Shares In Revenue Sharing For Onshore And Offshore Production. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would adjust revenue sharing requirements for onshore and offshore production to generally decrease federal shares and increase state shares, particularly for coastal states." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]
The Bill Would Require Annual Geothermal Lease Sales, End A Moratorium On New Coal Leasing, And Approve Of Previously Authorized Coal Leases. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would also require annual geothermal lease sales; terminate a moratorium on new coal leasing; and provide for final approval of previously authorized coal leases." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]
The Bill Would Streamline The Permitting Process Under The National Environmental Policy Act, Require More Oil And Gas Lease Sales, And Encourage The Export Of Liquefied Natural Gas. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would accelerate the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act, mandate more oil and gas lease sales and support the export of liquefied natural gas, or LNG." [Congressional Quarterly, 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]
The Bill Would Require The Interior Department To Continue Quarterly Lease Sales Of Oil And Gas, End A Moratorium On Coal Leasing In Federal Lands, And Bar The President From Banning Fracking. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The legislation passed Thursday requires the Interior Department to complete quarterly lease sales of oil and gas, lift a moratorium on coal leasing on federal land and prohibit the president from declaring a national ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]
Republicans Claimed The Bill Would Decrease Domestic Prices Of Gas And Electricity, While Democrats Argued The Bill Was Misguided And The U.S. Should Be Investing In Renewable Energy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans claim the measure (HR 1) would lower domestic prices of gas and electricity. Democrats have argued the bill, which would repeal a series of climate provisions, is misguided at a time when the U.S. should be focused on investing in renewable fuel sources." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23]
The Biden Administration Opposed The Bill, Arguing That Domestic Oil And Gas Production Was Set To Reach Record Highs In 2023. According to Politico, "In its statement of administration policy opposing the bill, the White House noted that both domestic oil and gas production are set to reach record highs this year as companies have responded to last year's high prices to bring more supply to the market. Gasoline prices have come down from record highs since the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine last year but they could be set to rise again this summer during peak driving season." [Politico, 3/30/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Lower Energy Costs Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 260) that would provide for floor consideration of the Lower Energy Costs Act (HR 1). The rule would provide for up to seven hours of general debate on HR 1 and make in order floor consideration of 37 amendments to the bill. It would provide for automatic adoption of a Westerman, R-Ark., manager's amendment to HR 1 that would sunset on Sept. 30, 2032, a title of the bill that would reduce the federal share of revenue and provide for direct revenue sharing to states from certain Outer Continental Shelf and other offshore wind projects." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218 to 203. [House Vote 166, 3/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/28/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 260; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Lower Energy Costs Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 260) that would provide for floor consideration of the Lower Energy Costs Act (HR 1). The rule would provide for up to seven hours of general debate on HR 1 and make in order floor consideration of 37 amendments to the bill. It would provide for automatic adoption of a Westerman, R-Ark., manager's amendment to HR 1 that would sunset on Sept. 30, 2032, a title of the bill that would reduce the federal share of revenue and provide for direct revenue sharing to states from certain Outer Continental Shelf and other offshore wind projects." The vote was on a motion order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 218 to 203. [House Vote 165, 3/28/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/28/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 260; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development By $355 Million And Against Increasing Funding For Energy Efficiently And Renewable Energy By $177 Million. In July 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] by $177 million funding to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account and would [have] reduce[d] by $355 million funding to the Fossil Fuel Research and Development account." The underlying legislation was an FY 18 'minibus' appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 181 to 246. [House Vote 420, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/26/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 234; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3219]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Funding For Fossil Energy Research. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "reduce[d] funding for Energy Department fossil energy research and development by $285 million and transfer the amount to the spending reduction account." The underlying bill was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 144 to 275. [House Vote 246, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1098; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Increase Funding For Renewable And Efficient Energy By $26 Million And Cut Funding For Fossil Fuels By $34 Million. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and cut funding for fossil fuels by $34 million. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, "increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $26 million and reduce funding for fossil energy by $34 million." The underlying bill would have made, according to Congressional Quarterly, "appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 173 to 248. [House Vote 198, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/02/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 167; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): Amendment Reduced A Proposed $266 Million Cut To Renewable Energy Funding. According to a floor speech by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), "Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase investments in fossil fuel by $34 million. [...] I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future-- renewable energy." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA): Amendment Prevented A Proposed Increase In Fossil Fuel Funding. According to a floor speech by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), "Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase investments in fossil fuel by $34 million. [...] I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future-- renewable energy." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID): "We Are The Saudi Arabia Of Coal." In a floor speech in opposition to the amendment, Rep. Simpson (R-ID) said, "it is the same debate we used on the other amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more efficiently, and that is what we are investing in." [Congressional Record, 4/29/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Cutting Funding For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy By Increasing Funding For Fossil Energy Research And Development. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "increase[d] funding for fossil energy research and development by $50 million and reduce funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by a similar amount." The underlying legislation was H.R. 2028, which was the FY 2016 Energy and Water Development appropriations act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 244. [House Vote 197, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 164; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2028]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut Energy Department Fossil Fuel Research And Development Programs By Nearly $31 Million. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to the its stated purpose, "[would have] reduce[d] funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs by $22 million; Nuclear Energy Programs by $9,810,000; Fossil Energy Research and Development by $30,935,000; Department of Energy Departmental Administration by $9,551,000; Salaries and Expenses for Nuclear Regulatory Commission by $49,062,000 and to apply $121,358,000 to the spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 129 to 290. [House Vote 379, 7/10/14; Congress.Gov, H. Amdt. 993 (113th Congress), Viewed 8/15/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 993; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
To Control and Fund Federal Agencies And Programs, Congress Often Follows A Two-Step Process: It Authorizes Appropriations For A Defined Agency Or Program, And Then Separately Allocates Actual Funding Among Authorized Programs In An Appropriations Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, "A primary avenue for exercising Congress's power of the purse is the authorization and appropriation of federal spending to carry out government activities. While the power over appropriations is granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution, the authorization-appropriation process is derived from House and Senate rules. The formal process consists of two sequential steps: (1) enactment of an authorization measure that may create or continue an agency, program, or activity as well as authorize the subsequent enactment of appropriations; and (2) enactment of appropriations to provide funds for the authorized agency, program, or activity." [CRS Report #RS20371, 11/26/12]
Amendment's Sponsor Said He Was Trying To Eliminate Some Of The Bill's $24 Billion In Funding For Programs Congress Had Not Separately Authorized. According to the Congressional Record, "[E]ver since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. Yet last year, the eleven appropriations bills reported out of the House Appropriations Committee contained over $350 billion in spending on unauthorized programs. The rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring these appropriations to the floor. The bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as 1980. That was Jimmy Carter's last year in office. Now, I am sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely, others are not. The fact that they have not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at least a little more careful about continuing to fund them." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut $3.1 Billion In Energy Department Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would decrease by $3.1 billion the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, Energy Department nuclear energy activities and fossil energy research and development collectively and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 97 to 321. [House Vote 377, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 992; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued Funding Was Simply "Corporate Welfare" That Subsidized Private Companies R&D Budgets, Distorting The Energy Industry While Not Even Making The Resulting Research Public. According to the Congressional Record, the amendment's sponsor, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), said, "[T]his amendment requires energy companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of $3.1 billion. If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete on its own merits. For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco. This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that received these public funds. Public costs, private benefit -- that is called corporate welfare. That is what these energy subsidies amount to. My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds." [Congressional Record, 7/9/14]
Amendment Opponent Argued It Eliminated "Strategic Investments For Our Energy Independence," Including Research Into Using Coal In Electricity-Producing Fuel Cells. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "The bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million below the budget request. The fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases of $31 million and $10 million, respectively. The increase to fossil energy will support research into how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power through fuel cells. The increase to nuclear energy will accommodate a $10 million increase to support base physical and cybersecurity activities at the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy materials and a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies. Although my colleague asserts that the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence." [Congressional Record, 7/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing Funding For Fossil Fuel Research And Development By $161.9 Million. In July 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Swalwell, D-Calif., amendment that would increase by $111.6 million the amount provided in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities and decrease by $161.9 million the amount provided for fossil energy research and development." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 245. [House Vote 375, 7/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/9/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit A Selective Fuel Ban. In July 2013, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to enforce the selective fuel ban, which bars federal agencies from entering into contracts for procurement of alternative or synthetic fuel unless it specifies that greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel are less than or equal to emissions from fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources." The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 237 to 189. [House Vote 394, 7/10/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2397]