2015: Schweikert Voted To Require FERC To Decide On A Pre-Filed Natural Gas Pipeline Constructing Request Within 12 Months. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that would effectively streamline and accelerate the federal permitting process for hydropower projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "For natural gas pipelines, the bill requires FERC to approve or deny an application for a pipeline construction certificate (known as a certificate of public convenience and necessity) for 'pre-filed' projects within 12 months of receiving a complete application. (Under the current process, FERC strongly recommends to builders that applications for larger projects be conducted through its pre-filing process, under which FERC works with the builder to assemble a completed application for certification that can be processed more efficiently.) Such complete applications must be ready to be processed, as defined by FERC in regulation. Federal agencies responsible for issuing permits in connection with pre-filed projects, meanwhile, must approve or deny the permit within 90 days of when FERC issues a final environmental statement for the project. Under the measure, FERC may extend by 30 days the time period for a federal agency to make a decision if the agency demonstrates that it cannot complete the process in the required 90 days." 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]
Legislation Increases FERC's Role In The Natural Ga Pipeline Permitting Process; It Requires FERC To Set A Schedule For Review, Including A Deadline. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill includes numerous provisions intended to bolster the construction of natural gas pipeline and hydropower infrastructure in the United States, including by increasing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority in reviewing and approving such projects. It also includes provisions to promote the designation of natural gas pipeline corridors across federal lands and to allow pipelines to cross National Park Service lands. It designates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for reviewing proposals for building or significantly modifying either type of project. In doing so, the agency must identify all agencies considering an aspect of an application and set the schedule for review, including a deadline for a final decision. Cooperating agencies would carry out reviews concurrently, identifying any issues of concern that may delay or prevent an agency from meeting the schedule established by FERC, and defer to FERC on the scope of the environmental review in accordance with applicable federal law." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
If The Federal Agency Does Not Reach A Decision By The Deadline, The Permit Is Deemed Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure provides that if a federal agency does not approve or deny the permit within the required time period, the permit is deemed to be approved 30 days later. The bill includes provisions to promote the designation of natural gas pipeline corridors across federal lands and to allow pipelines to cross National Park Service lands, which constitute the text of HR 2295." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
Bill Supporters Note That The Bill Streamlines The Permitting Process For Natural Gas Pipeline Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Most critically, they say, the bill streamlines the review process for new natural gas pipelines and allows FERC to set hard deadlines that other agencies involved in the process must adhere to, rather than letting the process bog down for years." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/15]
Bill Opponents Claim That The Bill Would Create Arbitrary Deadlines For Review Of Potential Environmental Impacts. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[Bill opponents] say the bill sets arbitrary deadlines that ride roughshod over important environmental regulations meant to protect the public's health, chastising requirements that decisions on pipeline applications be made within relatively short time frames, no matter how complex an application and proposed project may be. This is especially egregious considering that FERC is not required to provide other agencies with information that may be needed to make such decisions. It also undercuts the president's Clean Power Plan and the actions of the Obama administration to address the threat of climate change under the guise of energy reliability by requiring FERC to conduct a 'reliability analysis' of rules that cost over a billion dollars, they say, while other 'reliability' requirements would effectively favor coal-fired and nuclear power plants over renewable-energy sources." [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 To Expedite Decisions On Applications On Natural Gas Exportation As Part Of A Bill That Overhauled Federal Energy Policy. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that would expedite decisions on natural gas exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export natural gas (usually in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG), setting a deadline for the department to approve or deny an application to within 30 days of the bill's enactment or the close of the application's public comment period, whichever is later. Under the measure, all export applications must publicly disclose the specific nation or nations that would receive the proposed export of LNG." 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]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Require The Department Of Energy Make A Decision On Pending Applications To Export Liquid Natural Gas Within 30 Days, Or At The End Of An Applications Public Comment, Whichever Is Later. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Energy Department to make a decision on pending applications to export liquefied natural gas within 30 days of the bill's enactment or at the end of the public comment period, whichever is later. Under the bill, applications would have to publicly disclose the countries that would receive the proposed exports. It also would [have] authorize[d] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit where the proposed export facility will be located to exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action pertaining to such applications. The court would be required to order the Energy Department to approve any applications within 30 days if it finds the agency did not issue a decision by the bill's deadline." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 277 to 133. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 50, 1/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 351]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Barring The Exportation Of Liquefied Natural Gas To Nations That Sponsor Terrorism. In January 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the exportation of liquefied natural gas to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism and to require that such exports be transported by U.S.-flagged and made vessels." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Energy Department to make a decision on pending applications to export liquefied natural gas within 30 days of the bill's enactment or at the end of the public comment period, whichever is later." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 175 to 237. [House Vote 49, 1/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 351]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act Of 2023. In October 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 756) that [... ] would provide that H Res 699 would be automatically laid on the table. The resolution would provide for floor consideration of [...] a measure concerning natural gas export-import (HR 1130)." [House Vote 517, 10/3/23; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 756]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act Of 2023. In October 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 756) that [... ] would provide that H Res 699 would be automatically laid on the table. The resolution would provide for floor consideration of [...] a measure concerning natural gas export-import (HR 1130)." [House Vote 516, 10/3/23; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 756]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing Oil And Gas Obtained Under A Proposed Expanded Leasing Program To Only Be Exported If Doing So Will Not Increase Gas Or Home Heating Oil Prices. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] require[d] that leases issued under the bill include a clause specifying that oil and natural gas produced under the lease may only be exported if the Interior secretary determines that the exports will not increase the price of gasoline or home heating oil for U.S. consumers. It would [have] require[d] the Interior Department to adhere to timelines for permitting and notify reasons of permit denial only if the applicant agrees not to claim the domestic production activities tax deduction." The underlying bill, according to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, "would establish a five-year program for oil and gas leasing. The bill would double the cap for offshore oil and gas revenue sharing to $1 billion and require at least 25 percent of eligible federal land be made available each year to lease for oil and gas exploration. Under the bill, the Interior Department would be required to make available for oil and gas exploration and development at least 50 percent of the unleased coastal areas that have the most potential for energy production." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill to the House Natural Resources Committee, with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 177 to 235. [House Vote 367, 6/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/26/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4899]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Barring The Exportation Of Natural Gas To Nations That Sponsor Terrorism Or Obtains Military Technology Through Cyber Attacks. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the Energy Department from granting authorization for applicants to export natural gas if the export would increase the price of natural gas, electricity or home heating for seniors on fixed incomes. It would [have] bar[red] authorization if the gas would be exported to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism or any nation or corporation that illegally obtains military technology or intellectual property through cyber attacks." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export liquefied natural gas." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 192 to 225. [House Vote 358, 6/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Barring The Department Of Energy From Granting Natural Gas Exportation Authorizations If It Would Increase The Price Of Natural Gas, Electricity Or Home Heating For Seniors Living On A Fixed Income. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the Energy Department from granting authorization for applicants to export natural gas if the export would increase the price of natural gas, electricity or home heating for seniors on fixed incomes. It would [have] bar[red] authorization if the gas would be exported to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism or any nation or corporation that illegally obtains military technology or intellectual property through cyber attacks." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export liquefied natural gas." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 192 to 225. [House Vote 358, 6/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6]
2025: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit A Moratorium On Fracking Without Congressional Authorization. In February 2025, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would prohibit the president from imposing a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing, unless such a moratorium were to be authorized by Congress. It would also express a sense of Congress that the states should maintain primacy for the regulation of oil and natural gas production on state and private lands." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 226 to 188. [House Vote 35, 2/7/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/7/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Implementation Of An April 2021 Delaware River Basin Commission Rule Regarding Fracking. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 42 that would prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill to implement or enforce an April 2021 Delaware River Basin Commission final rule with respect to hydraulic fracturing." 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 195 to 210. [House Vote 364, 7/23/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.1104; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8997]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The President From Issuing A Moratorium On Hydraulic Fracturing. In March 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill (HR 1121) that would prohibit the president from issuing a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless such a moratorium is authorized by an act of Congress." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 229 to 188. [House Vote 93, 3/20/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/20/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1121]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The President From Declaring A Moratorium On Fracking And From Taking Actions That Would Delay New Leases, Sales And Drilling Permits For Oil And Gas, Coal Or Mineral Exploration. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "prohibit the president from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing and from taking any action that would delay new leases, sales and drill permits for oil and gas, coal or mineral exploration." 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 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]
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]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Bar The Susquehanna, Delaware And Potomac River Basin Commissions From Implementing Their Own Fracking Regulations Instead Of Following State Fracking Laws. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "prohibit the Susquehanna, Delaware and Potomac river basin commissions from finalizing, implementing or enforcing any regulation relating to hydraulic fracturing issued pursuant to any authority other than that of the state where the regulation would be implemented or enforced." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 210 to 223. [House Vote 172, 3/29/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 143]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Preventing The Government From Issuing Fracking Regulations In A State That Already Had Them. 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]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Grant States Authority Over Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing In Their State As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for granting states the authority over natural gas hydraulic fracking as part of the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "prohibits[ed] the Interior Department from enforcing federal rules related to hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in states that have their own fracking oversight rules, and it requires EPA to take certain actions in conducting its study of the impact of fracking on drinking water --- including setting a deadline for release of a final report." The underlying measure was the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. The vote was on the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 228 to 194; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which did not taken any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Fracking Is The Process Of Drilling Down Into The Earth, 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]
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]
Opponents Of The Bill Argued That The Federal Government Would Be Prevented "Ensuring That Baseline National Safety And Health Standards For Hydraulic Fracturing." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, primarily Democrats and environmentalists, argue that the bill would prevent the federal government from ensuring that baseline national safety and health standards for hydraulic fracturing are established that could be critical in protecting the public and its drinking water. The bill would halt the Interior Department's deliberative, public rule-making process before it is completed, they say, even though environmental regulators and the industry have failed to ensure that fracking is safe and the chemicals and other fluids used won't adversely affect the nation's water resources. They say the public strongly supports such federal efforts, noting that 1.2 million of the 1.3 million public comments received on the proposed rules support increased federal oversight." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
Opponents Of The Bill Argued That Each State's Fracking Rules Varied Widely And Did "Not Provide Assurances That A Standard Set Of Protections Exist On The More Than 750 Million Acres Of Land Containing Federal Minerals." According to Congressional Quarterly, "They note that while many states have enacted their own fracking rules, that patchwork of state rules varies widely and does not provide assurances that a standard set of protections exist on the more than 750 million acres of land containing federal minerals. Under the bill, state rules would pre-empt federal rules even if the state rules were a mere sentence long, and because it applies to 'all activities related to' fracking, this overly broad pre-emption could effectively eliminate federal regulations on 90% of the drilling activity in the United States since 90% of the nation's wells involve some fracking. Federal rules will simply provide a nationwide 'floor' of health and safety standards, they say, and would not interfere with more stringent state standards since drillers operating on federal lands already must also adhere to all state and local laws." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
Supporters Of The Bill Insisted That State Regulations Of Hydraulic Fracturing Took A State's "Unique Geography And Energy Production" Into Consideration In Comparison To "A One-Size-Fits-All Federal Approach." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters, including Republicans and the oil and gas industry, argue that existing state regulation of hydraulic fracturing has worked well and that federal regulation is unnecessary and would increase costs and significantly hinder further oil and gas development. A one-size-fits-all federal approach to fracking regulation will not work and would be difficult to implement across the country, they say, noting that each state has carefully devised state-specific rules for energy production that take into account the state's unique geography and energy production considerations. Burdensome federal fracking rules will simply increase the costs of production, they contend, with some estimating that the Interior Department's proposed rules would cost the industry almost $254,000 per well." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
Supporters Of The Bill Insisted That Sufficient State And Local Laws Addressed The Concerns And Protections Required Before Oil And Gas Was Extracted. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They argue that additional regulation in this area is unnecessary given that federal, state and local laws already address every aspect of oil and gas exploration and production --- including well design, location, water and waste management and disposal, air emissions, wildlife protection, surface impact, and health and safety. In addition, the industry has created a number of guidance documents and other initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing, including recommended best practices for extracting shale oil and gas. As a result, they say, there have been no confirmed reports of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. Many states have benefited greatly from the increase in fracking; imposing new federal rules would slow and greatly reduce energy development, job creation and economic development in those states." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Require The Government Accountability Office To Conduct A Study On How Prohibiting Gas Appliances Would Impact Energy Costs. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "require the Government Accountability Office, within one year of enactment, to conduct a study on how banning gas appliances would affect electricity costs." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 268 to 163. [House Vote 170, 3/29/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 141]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Bar The Energy Department From Implementing Or Enforcing A February 2023 Rule That Would Establish Tighter Gas Stove Efficiency Standards Or Any "Substantially Similar" Rules. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which would "prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing, implementing or enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would impose stricter gas stove efficiency standards, or any 'substantially similar' rule." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 249 to 181, thus sent the bill to the Senate. [House Vote 268, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640]
Republicans Claimed The Regulation Could Impact 96% Of The Market Because The Energy Department Reported That 20 Out Of 21 Gas Stoves Tested Did Not Meet A Certain Standard. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Prior to the release of the proposed rule, the department produced a technical support document that said 20 of 21 gas stoves tested wouldn't meet a certain performance standard, fueling the Republicans' charge that the final rule would impact 96 percent of the market." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
February 2023: The Energy Department Clarified The Previous Report Did Not Include All Gas Stoves In The Market And Assured That Almost Half Of The Market Would Already Meet Standards. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The department said in a February update that the original analysis didn't include all gas stoves on the market and that 'nearly half of the total gas cooking top market' would already meet the technical standards for the proposed rule." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
The Association Of Home Appliance Manufactures And The American Gas Association Were Concerned The Rule Would Be Too Strict. According to Congressional Quarterly, "However, groups including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and the American Gas Association raised concerns that the rule would still be too stringent and expressed support for the bill. Republican members continued to cite the 96 percent figure as they pushed for passage in floor debate." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
If They Wanted To Establish A Conservation Standard For Gas Stoves, The Bill Would Require The Energy Department To Ensure The Standard Would Not Lead To Unavailability Of A Type Of Product Based On The Type Of Fuel It Needs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would also prohibit the department from determining that an energy conservation standard for kitchen ranges or ovens is economically justified unless it determines that the standard would not likely result in the unavailability of a type of product in the United States based on what type of fuel it consumes." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Eliminated A Requirement For The Energy Department To Determine Product Availability Impacts Before Establishing New Energy Conservation Standards For Gas Stoves And Eliminated A Prohibition On Future Similar Rules To The February 2023 Rule On Gas Stove Efficiency Standards. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which would "strike language requiring the Energy Department to determine the impact on product availability before imposing a new energy conservation standard for kitchen ranges or ovens. It would also strike the bill's prohibition on future DOE rulemaking that is 'substantially similar' to the February 2023 rule on gas stove efficiency standards." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 209 to 225. [House Vote 267, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 189]
2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Postpone The Prohibition On Gas Stove Efficiency Regulations Until The Energy Department Were To Declare That Without Regulations There Would Not Be Any Impacts On Energy Security. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which would "delay the bill's prohibition on enforcement of the gas stove efficiency regulation until the Energy Department declares that the absence of the rule will not adversely affect American energy security." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 207 to 224. [House Vote 266, 6/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 188]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Consumer Product Safety Commission From Using Federal Funding To Regulate Gas Stoves As Banned Hazardous Products Or Impose Safety Standards On Gas Stoves That Would Result In Prohibition Or Increase In Price. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, which would "prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using federal funds to regulate gas stoves as banned hazardous products or to impose any consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves that would either result in their prohibition or 'substantially increase' their average price. As amended, the bill would broaden the bill's prohibition on gas stove regulations to include regulatory actions that would result in the unavailability in the United States of a type of product based on the fuel it uses." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 248 to 180, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 255, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615]
The Bill Would Prevent The Consumer Product Safety Commission From Finalizing A Rule Prohibiting Gas Stoves. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The vote came after the House on Tuesday passed a bill (HR 1615) from Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., that would prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission from finalizing a regulation banning gas stoves." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/14/23]
The Bill Would Prevent The Commission From Utilizing Federal Funds To Finalize Or Enforce A Gas Stove Ban Or Implement Safety Standards That Could Spike The Average Price. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would prevent the CPSC from using federal funds to finalize or enforce a ban on gas stoves, or impose any safety standard that would significantly increase their average price." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23]
The Bill Was Filed After A Commission Member Raised The Possibility Of A Gas Stove Ban Which Was Quickly Shut Down By The Commission Chairman. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans introduced the bill after a CPSC member raised the prospect of a ban only to be quickly contradicted by the agency chairman." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Expand Prohibitions On Gas Stove Regulations To Include Regulatory Action That Would Lead To Unavailability Of A Product Based On The Fuel It Uses. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, which would "broaden the bill's prohibition on gas stove regulations to include regulatory actions that would result in the unavailability in the United States of a type of product based on the fuel it uses." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 222 to 210. [House Vote 254, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 186]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Gas Stove Protection And Freedom Act. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 495) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act (HR 1615)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218 to 209. [House Vote 250, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Save Our Gas Stoves Act. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 495) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Save Our Gas Stoves Act (HR 1640)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218 to 209. [House Vote 250, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Gas Stove Protection And Freedom Act. In June 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 495) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act (HR 1615)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 216 to 209. [House Vote 249, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Save Our Gas Stoves Act. In June 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 495) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Save Our Gas Stoves Act (HR 1640)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 216 to 209. [House Vote 249, 6/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 495; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Gas Stove Protection And Freedom Act. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act (HR 1615)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House rejected the rule by a vote of 206 to 220. [House Vote 248, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615]
Far-Right House Republicans Organized To Vote Against The Rule As A Rebuke To GOP Leadership For The Passage Of The Bipartisan Debt Limit Package And For Backtracking On A Promise to Vote On Gun Rights Legislation. According to Roll Call, "Hard-right House conservatives derailed legislation scheduled for floor votes Tuesday in a rebuke to GOP leadership. A group of House Republicans bucked their party to vote against a rule (H Res 463) devised by GOP leaders to take up legislation that included measures to rein in the federal regulatory process (HR 277, HR 288) and the Biden administration's ability to restrict gas stoves in particular (HR 1615, HR 1640). The rule was defeated on a 206-220 vote, as 11 GOP defectors joined all Democrats in opposition. [...] The dissenting Republicans said the vote was intended to signal their frustration with GOP leadership for cutting a deal last week on the debt limit they opposed. They also said leaders backtracked on a pledge to schedule a floor vote on gun rights legislation (H J Res 44)." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
The Defeat Of The House Rule Was The First Defeat Since 2002. According to Roll Call, "It was the first defeat of a House rule on the floor since 2002, according to C-SPAN's Howard Mortman. At that time, anti-abortion Republicans rebelled against bankruptcy overhaul legislation over language Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., helped author that would bar protesters at abortion clinics from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines and judgments." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Save Our Gas Stoves Act. In June 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] and the Save Our Gas Stoves Act (HR 1640)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House rejected the rule by a vote of 206 to 220. [House Vote 248, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640]
Far-Right House Republicans Organized To Vote Against The Rule As A Rebuke To GOP Leadership For The Passage Of The Bipartisan Debt Limit Package And For Backtracking On A Promise to Vote On Gun Rights Legislation. According to Roll Call, "Hard-right House conservatives derailed legislation scheduled for floor votes Tuesday in a rebuke to GOP leadership. A group of House Republicans bucked their party to vote against a rule (H Res 463) devised by GOP leaders to take up legislation that included measures to rein in the federal regulatory process (HR 277, HR 288) and the Biden administration's ability to restrict gas stoves in particular (HR 1615, HR 1640). The rule was defeated on a 206-220 vote, as 11 GOP defectors joined all Democrats in opposition. [...] The dissenting Republicans said the vote was intended to signal their frustration with GOP leadership for cutting a deal last week on the debt limit they opposed. They also said leaders backtracked on a pledge to schedule a floor vote on gun rights legislation (H J Res 44)." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
The Defeat Of The House Rule Was The First Defeat Since 2002. According to Roll Call, "It was the first defeat of a House rule on the floor since 2002, according to C-SPAN's Howard Mortman. At that time, anti-abortion Republicans rebelled against bankruptcy overhaul legislation over language Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., helped author that would bar protesters at abortion clinics from declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines and judgments." [Roll Call, 6/6/23]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Gas Stove Protection And Freedom Act. In June 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 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act (HR 1615)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 215 to 203. [House Vote 247, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1615]
2023: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Save Our Gas Stoves Act. In June 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 463) that would provide for House floor consideration of [...] and the Save Our Gas Stoves Act (HR 1640)." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 215 to 203. [House Vote 247, 6/6/23; Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 463; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1640]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted For The Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act. In February 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1009) that would provide for floor consideration of the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act (HR 7176)." The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212 to 206. [House Vote 45, 2/14/24; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1009; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7176]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Remove Restrictions On The Import And Export Of Liquefied Natural Gas. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "remove restrictions on the import and export of liquefied natural gas." 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]
Republicans Claimed The Bill Would Decrease Emissions By Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas Abroad To Offset Foreign Oil And Gas, Especially Russian Fuel. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans said the bill would lower emissions by sending LNG abroad to offset foreign-made oil and gas, including fuels from Russia, known for a leaky oil and gas system that bleeds methane into the air." [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]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Expedite Applications For Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas. In June 2014, Schweikert voted to require the Department of Energy to expedite decisions on applications for exporting liquefied natural gas. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "require[d] the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export liquefied natural gas. As amended, it would [have] require[d] that a decision on pending applications be made within 30 days of the bill's enactment or the close of the application's public comment period, whichever is later. It would [have] require[d] that all applications publicly disclose the specific nation or nations that would receive the proposed export of liquefied natural gas." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 266 to 150. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 359, 6/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Disapprove Of Oregon's Denial Of Permits For The Jordan Cove Energy Project, Which Sought To Build A Liquefied Natural Gas Export Terminal. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "express that Congress disapproves of the state of Oregon's denial of permits necessary for the Jordan Cove Energy Project, which was intended to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Coos County, Oregon." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 221 to 208. [House Vote 167, 3/29/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 134]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Preventing Expedited Permitting For Corporations That Release Toxic Air Pollutants Within Five Miles Of A School And Require That Oil And Natural Gases Derived From Certain New Leases Should Not Be Exported To Certain Enemies. September 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against preventing expedited permitting for corporations that release toxic air pollutants within five miles of a school and require that oil and natural gases derived from certain new leases should not be exported to certain enemies. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to recommit would have "require[d] the establishment of a Treasury Department account for $10 million per year of revenues generated from the bill to be used by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also would require that any lease issued under the bill specify that natural gas products cannot be exported to any nation or organization that provides support to terrorists or steals American military technology." In addition, according to a floor speech by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), "This amendment would seek to limit the release of toxic air pollutants around schools, hospitals, and nursing homes from the massive storage of petroleum coke in populated areas." The underlying legislation was the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 193 to 222. [House Vote 514, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2; Congressional Record, 9/18/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Remove The Need For Presidential Approval For Future Pipeline Projects That Cross The Mexican Or Canadian Border. In June 2014, Schweikert voted for legislation that would require many future oil and gas pipelines that cross international borders to be reviewed by the Secretary of State or Energy within 120 days. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "require[d] future oil and gas pipeline projects and power lines that cross international borders to be reviewed by the State or Energy secretary within 120 days of the environmental review, unless the agency finds the project is not in the public interest of the United States. It would [have] eliminate[d] the current system created by executive orders under which a presidential permit must be issued." The vote was on passage. The House adopted the legislation by a vote of 238 to 173. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 354, 6/24/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3301]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Expedite The Permitting Process For Natural Gas Pipelines. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] the bill's changes to the permitting process of pipelines." 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 179 to 244. [House Vote 657, 12/2/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/2/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 840; Congressional Actions, H.R 8]
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Underlying Bill's Provision Is A Solution In Search Of A Problem; Real Goal Is To Expedite The Permitting Process. In a floor speech, Rep. Tonko said, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes section 1101 of the underlying bill. The section is a solution in search of a problem. The section's purported goal is to reinforce the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines; however, I do not think there is any doubt over FERC's role in pipeline siting approval. In reality, this section is designed to further expedite permitting for natural gas pipelines. But there is very little evidence that this process needs expediting, which ultimately would restrict States and other Federal agencies' ability to review projects and the public's ability to comment on them." [Congressional Record, 12/2/15]
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): Proper Scrutiny Is Needed Due To Safety Concerns. In a floor speech, Rep. Tonko said, "We are building new pipelines. There is no problem that needs fixing. So what evidence is there that the certification process needs to be further tilted in favor of pipeline companies at the expense of environmental review and public comment? I would say there isn't any. Yet, Mr. Chairman, this section would require FERC to decide on a pipeline application within 90 days after the Commission issues its final environmental document, regardless of the complexity of the application. It would also allow FERC to consider environmental data collected by aerial or other remote surveys instead of onsite inspections. This would enable pipeline companies to circumvent property owners' rights when surveying land, all in hopes of speeding up projects. The siting of natural gas pipelines is complicated and can be controversial. I know this well since there are a number of projects currently being developed in or near the district I represent. I hear from my constituents about these projects regularly. They are very concerned, and they feel like they are being left out of this process. They are concerned about the safety and about the noise, air, and water pollution from the construction and operation of the pipeline's associated facilities. The pipeline companies do not have a problem. The public does. We know that these types of projects, no matter how beneficial to the public interest, can be controversial. Someone is always unhappy about the selected route or placement of these facilities. But we need to do a better job of bringing the public along, and these provisions do the opposite. [Congressional Record, 12/2/15]
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI): Demand For Natural Gas Is Growing And The Pipeline Permitting Process Is Too Complex. In a floor speech, Rep. Upton said, "As we all know, the demand for natural gas is growing, which requires new and modernized pipeline infrastructure. It has got to happen. Unfortunately, the permitting process is becoming increasingly complex and challenging. Rate hikes hit the families and businesses that can least afford it the hardest, the most vulnerable. So we have worked very diligently to find some agreement on this provision. We have held hearings, received technical assistance from FERC, and accepted many of their recommendations. Section 1101 would authorize concurrent permitting reviews, require more transparency through the process, and allow for the use of new survey technology for citing pipelines." [Congressional Record, 12/2/15]
2025: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Prohibited The Sale Of New Instantaneous, Non-Condensing Gas-Fired Water Heaters. In February 2025, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the joint resolution that would nullify the Department of Energy's final rule issued on Dec. 26, 2024, that set new standards for instantaneous gas-fired water heaters and set to take effect on Dec. 26, 2029. The DOE rule would essentially prohibit the sale of new instantaneous, non-condensing gas-fired water heaters, but would allow for the sale and use of other instantaneous water heaters." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 221 to 198. [House Vote 53, 2/27/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/27/25; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 20]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Bar The Energy Department From Implemented An Energy Conservation Rule For Gas Kitchen Ranges And Ovens Or Any Rule That Would Restrict Consumer Access To Gas Ranges And Ovens. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule concerning energy conservation standards for gas kitchen ranges and ovens, or any substantially similar rule, including any rule that would directly or indirectly limit consumer access to such ranges and ovens." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 251 to 181. [House Vote 171, 3/29/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 142]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Banning The Federal Government From Implementing Regulations Related To Hydraulic Fracking In A State That Has Already Issues Regulations As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for banning the federal government from issuing regulations on fracking in states that have already issued regulations on it. According to the Republican Study Committee, "This budget proposes opening up new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for domestic energy production, repealing the ban on energy exploration in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, allowing states to develop resources on federal land within their borders, and stopping the federal government from implementing any hydraulic fracturing regulations in a state that has already issued its own regulations." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Federal Rules On Greenhouse Gas Emissions For The Oil And Natural Gas Industries. 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 enforce rules relating to source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound emissions from the oil and natural gas sector." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 218 to 195. The House later passed the overall bill. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 488, 9/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 368; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against The BLM's Natural Gas Flaring Rule. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the use of funds to finalize, implement, or enforce the Bureau of Land Management's rule aimed to reduce waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and natural gas production activities on onshore federal and Indian (other than Osage Tribe) leases." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 216 to 186. The House later passed the underlying bill. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 484, 9/7/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 361; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove Waste Production, Production Subject to Royalties, And Resource Conservation Rule. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for disapproving a rule on waste production via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This resolution disapproves the Waste Production, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation rule issued by the Interior Department on Nov. 18, 2016, and 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 221 to 191. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 78, 2/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 36]
The Rule Requires That Oil And Gas Producers Use The Most Current Technology And Process To Cut Flaring In Half, Inspect Their Operations For Leaks And Limit Venting From Storage Tanks. According to Congressional Quarterly, "As part of Obama's climate plan, the Interior Department sought to reduce the release of natural gas into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations on public and Indian lands by updating existing regulations on venting, flaring and leaks of natural gas. [...] The final rule, which was issued Nov. 18, 2016, requires oil and gas producers to use currently available technologies and processes to cut flaring in half at oil wells on public and tribal lands. Operators must also periodically inspect their operations for leaks and replace outdated pieces of equipment that vent large quantities of gas into the air. It also requires operators to limit venting from storage tanks, use best practices to limit gas losses when removing liquids from wells and restores the government's flexibility to set royalty rates at or above 12.5% of the value of production." [Congressional Quarterly, [1/27/17](file://americanbridge.local/fileservices/Users/TZubatkin/Desktop/Opponents%20of%20the%20resolution,%20mainly%20Democrats,%20say%20that%20even%20though%20the%20United%20States%20is%20the%20largest%20producer%20of%20natural%20gas%20in%20the%20world,%20Americans%20have%20not%20benefited%20from%20the%20full%20potential%20of%20this%20energy%20resource%20because%20of%20venting,%20flaring%20and%20leaks%20of%20significant%20quantities%20of%20gas%20during%20the%20production%20process.%20They%20say%20that%20enough%20natural%20gas%20was%20lost%20between%202009%20and%202015%20to%20serve%20more%20than%206%20million%20households%20a%20year,%20which,%20according%20to%20the%20Government%20Accountability%20Office%20(GAO),%20means%20states,%20tribes%20and%20federal%20taxpayers%20lose%20millions%20of%20dollars%20annually%20in%20royalty%20revenue%20due%20the%20federal%20government%20and%20the%20states%20that%20share%20it.%20The%20rule%20is%20an%20important%20step%20in%20both%20protecting%20the%20environment%20and%20in%20reducing%20associated%20problems%20caused%20by%20global%20warming.)]
Democrat Supporters Of The Rule Note That Enough Natural Gas Was Lost Between 2009 And 2015 To Serve More Than Six Million Households, Costing Taxpayers Millions In Royalty Revenue. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the resolution, mainly Democrats, say that even though the United States is the largest producer of natural gas in the world, Americans have not benefited from the full potential of this energy resource because of venting, flaring and leaks of significant quantities of gas during the production process. They say that enough natural gas was lost between 2009 and 2015 to serve more than 6 million households a year, which, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), means states, tribes and federal taxpayers lose millions of dollars annually in royalty revenue due the federal government and the states that share it. The rule is an important step in both protecting the environment and in reducing associated problems caused by global warming." [Congressional Quarterly, [1/27/17](file://americanbridge.local/fileservices/Users/TZubatkin/Desktop/Opponents%20of%20the%20resolution,%20mainly%20Democrats,%20say%20that%20even%20though%20the%20United%20States%20is%20the%20largest%20producer%20of%20natural%20gas%20in%20the%20world,%20Americans%20have%20not%20benefited%20from%20the%20full%20potential%20of%20this%20energy%20resource%20because%20of%20venting,%20flaring%20and%20leaks%20of%20significant%20quantities%20of%20gas%20during%20the%20production%20process.%20They%20say%20that%20enough%20natural%20gas%20was%20lost%20between%202009%20and%202015%20to%20serve%20more%20than%206%20million%20households%20a%20year,%20which,%20according%20to%20the%20Government%20Accountability%20Office%20(GAO),%20means%20states,%20tribes%20and%20federal%20taxpayers%20lose%20millions%20of%20dollars%20annually%20in%20royalty%20revenue%20due%20the%20federal%20government%20and%20the%20states%20that%20share%20it.%20The%20rule%20is%20an%20important%20step%20in%20both%20protecting%20the%20environment%20and%20in%20reducing%20associated%20problems%20caused%20by%20global%20warming.)]
NOTE TO RESEARCHER. -- Find companies that would have been subject to this rule that the target is a) invested in b) has received campaign donations from. [Congressional Quarterly, [1/27/17](file://americanbridge.local/fileservices/Users/TZubatkin/Desktop/Opponents%20of%20the%20resolution,%20mainly%20Democrats,%20say%20that%20even%20though%20the%20United%20States%20is%20the%20largest%20producer%20of%20natural%20gas%20in%20the%20world,%20Americans%20have%20not%20benefited%20from%20the%20full%20potential%20of%20this%20energy%20resource%20because%20of%20venting,%20flaring%20and%20leaks%20of%20significant%20quantities%20of%20gas%20during%20the%20production%20process.%20They%20say%20that%20enough%20natural%20gas%20was%20lost%20between%202009%20and%202015%20to%20serve%20more%20than%206%20million%20households%20a%20year,%20which,%20according%20to%20the%20Government%20Accountability%20Office%20(GAO),%20means%20states,%20tribes%20and%20federal%20taxpayers%20lose%20millions%20of%20dollars%20annually%20in%20royalty%20revenue%20due%20the%20federal%20government%20and%20the%20states%20that%20share%20it.%20The%20rule%20is%20an%20important%20step%20in%20both%20protecting%20the%20environment%20and%20in%20reducing%20associated%20problems%20caused%20by%20global%20warming.)]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring The EPA To List Hydrogen Sulfide As A Hazardous Air Pollutant. In July 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the EPA to issue a rule adding hydrogen sulfide to the list of hazardous air pollutants." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "extend[ed] for eight years the deadline for the EPA to implement new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186 to 242. [House Vote 388, 7/18/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 201; Congressional Actions, H.R. 806]
Hydrogen Sulfide Is A Colorless, But Hazardous Gas, That Emits A 'Rotten Egg' Scent; It Occurs Naturally In Crude Petroleum And Natural Gas. According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, "Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a 'rotten egg' smell. It occurs naturally in crude petroleum and natural gas, and can be produced by the breakdown of organic matter and human/ animal wastes (e.g., sewage). It is heavier than air and can collect in low-lying and enclosed, poorly ventilated areas such as basements, manholes, sewer lines and underground telephone/electrical vaults." [OSHA, Accessed 7/11/16]
At High Concentrations, Death Can Occur Within A Few Breaths. According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, "Health effects vary with how long, and at what level, you are exposed. Asthmatics may be at greater risk. Low concentrations -- irritation of eyes, nose, throat, or respiratory system; effects can be delayed. Moderate concentrations -- more severe eye and respiratory effects, headache, dizziness, nausea, coughing, vomiting and difficulty breathing. High concentrations -- shock, convulsions, unable to breathe, coma, death; effects can be extremely rapid (within a few breaths)." [OSHA, Accessed 7/11/16]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring The EPA To List Hydrogen Sulfide As A Hazardous Air Pollutant. In June 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the EPA to issue a rule that would add hydrogen sulfide to the list of hazardous air pollutants." The underlying legislation would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "delay[ed] implementation of the EPA's 2015 air quality standards for ozone from 2017 until 2025." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 160 to 251. [House Vote 279, 6/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1154; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4775]
Hydrogen Sulfide Is A Colorless, But Hazardous Gas, That Emits A 'Rotten Egg' Scent; It Occurs Naturally In Crude Petroleum And Natural Gas. According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, "Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a 'rotten egg' smell. It occurs naturally in crude petroleum and natural gas, and can be produced by the breakdown of organic matter and human/ animal wastes (e.g., sewage). It is heavier than air and can collect in low-lying and enclosed, poorly ventilated areas such as basements, manholes, sewer lines and underground telephone/electrical vaults." [OSHA, Accessed 7/11/16]
At High Concentrations, Death Can Occur Within A Few Breaths. According to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, "Health effects vary with how long, and at what level, you are exposed. Asthmatics may be at greater risk. Low concentrations -- irritation of eyes, nose, throat, or respiratory system; effects can be delayed. Moderate concentrations -- more severe eye and respiratory effects, headache, dizziness, nausea, coughing, vomiting and difficulty breathing. High concentrations -- shock, convulsions, unable to breathe, coma, death; effects can be extremely rapid (within a few breaths)." [OSHA, Accessed 7/11/16]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring Oil And Gas Permit Applicants To Forgo The Domestic Production Activities Tax Break In Order To Take Advantage Of Expedited Permitting Procedures. In June 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] require[d] that leases issued under the bill include a clause specifying that oil and natural gas produced under the lease may only be exported if the Interior secretary determines that the exports will not increase the price of gasoline or home heating oil for U.S. consumers. It would [have] require[d] the Interior Department to adhere to timelines for permitting and notify reasons of permit denial only if the applicant agrees not to claim the domestic production activities tax deduction." The underlying bill, according to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, "would establish a five-year program for oil and gas leasing. The bill would double the cap for offshore oil and gas revenue sharing to $1 billion and require at least 25 percent of eligible federal land be made available each year to lease for oil and gas exploration. Under the bill, the Interior Department would be required to make available for oil and gas exploration and development at least 50 percent of the unleased coastal areas that have the most potential for energy production." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill to the House Natural Resources Committee, with instructions that it be reported back immediately with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 177 to 235. [House Vote 367, 6/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/26/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4899]