2014: Schweikert Voted To Require The Department Of Energy To Expedite The Approval Of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d]the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export liquified [sic] natural gas, requiring the department to approve or deny an application within 90 days of the bill's enactment or the close of the application's public comment period, whichever is later." 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 take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Supporters Argued The Bill Would Help Expedite The LNG Export Approval Process; In Particular To Give Facilities With Multibillion-Dollar Capital Investments An Advantage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that the Energy Department's slow approval process for LNG exports is squandering the chance to maximize the United States' current energy advantage, given the nation's abundance of natural gas. The department's current standard of reviewing export applications is unpredictable and constantly evolving and has been unacceptably slow, they say. LNG facilities are multibillion-dollar capital investments that take several years to build, so any regulatory uncertainty as to when export applications will be approved and to whom LNG can be sold can have a chilling effect on investment. If delays continue, they contend, nations with near-term energy needs will be forced to look elsewhere for supplies and America will miss this window of opportunity." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Supporters Argued The Bill Would Allow Increased U.S. Exports To Reduce The Ability For Russia To "Exert Political Pressure" On Other Nations With Natural Gas. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They also argue that in addition to the economic benefits, increasing U.S. energy exports into the global energy market will enhance U.S. national security by supplanting the influence of those troublesome participants currently dominating those energy markets, especially Iran and Russia. This is particularly important to Central and Eastern European nations that are heavily reliant on Russia for natural gas; U.S. exports will reduce the ability of Russia to exert political pressure on those nations. They say U.S. exports will also provide other global benefits, including economic benefits by providing more affordable energy to poorer countries and environmental benefits by providing greater access to natural gas, which produces lower greenhouse gas emissions." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Opponents Of The Bill Argued That There Would Be No "Guarantee That U.S. Exports Will Help Reduce The Influence Of Russia Over European Nations." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it is unnecessary and that the current LNG export approval process is working. The measure will simply disrupt the functioning approval process by arbitrarily limiting the time in which the Energy Department may review applications, which they say could lead to unintended results such as rejections because there was not enough time to thoroughly review them. And rushing to approve applications will do nothing to export LNG more quickly, since the first LNG export terminal won't begin operations until late 2015 and others won't be online until 2017 or 2018. They also say there is no guarantee that U.S. exports will help reduce the influence of Russia over European nations, since most operators likely would export to Asia, where natural gas prices are much higher." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Opponents That Increasing LNG Exports Would Raise Domestic Energy Prices For "American Consumers And Manufacturers." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Boosting exports of LNG will also raise domestic energy prices for American consumers and manufacturers and cost the nation jobs, they say. The Energy Information Administration in 2012 released a study of LNG exports, which found that increased natural gas exports will lead to increased natural gas prices in the United States and that 'rapid increases in exports would lead to sharp price increases' for U.S. consumers. For that reason, they point out, many major U.S. manufacturers oppose the bill on the basis that large volumes of exports will raise prices of natural gas and electricity for all Americans and undermine manufacturing competitiveness and their associate." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
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 Voted To Require At Least 25 Percent Of Eligible Federal Lands To Be Made Available Each Year For Leasing As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted to require at least 25 percent of eligible federal lands to be made available each year for leasing as part of the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the provision "seeks to increase domestic oil and gas production on federal lands and offshore by requiring that at least 25% of eligible federal land be made available each year for leasing, streamlining the process for approving drilling permits, requiring the Interior Department to make available for oil and gas exploration and development at least 50% of the unleased coastal areas that have the most potential for energy production, and requiring that drilling be allowed more immediately off the coasts of California, South Carolina and Virginia." 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 take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3]
Opponents Argued The Section Would Have No Impact On The Domestic Price Of Oil Or Gas And Would Put Local Communities At A "Disadvantage" When Challenging The Disadvantages Of Proposed Energy Leases And Permits. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Environmental groups and many Democrats argue that the bill is a massive giveaway to the oil and gas industries and that it simply represents another in a long line of Republican attempts to promote fossil fuel production over the development of other energy sources, such as renewable energy. They note that domestic oil and gas production has already hit historic highs and that for the first time in nearly two decades the nation is now producing more oil at home than it imports from other countries. Opponents say the bill will have no impact on the price of oil nor the price of gas at the pump and that it puts the interest of big oil over the environment. They also say the bill would unfairly put local communities and groups at a disadvantage in challenging proposed energy leases or permits, severely limiting their legal standing for civil actions and imposing steep fees for the mere right to challenge actions." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Supporters Noted That The Bill Was "Essential" To Reducing Foreign Dependence On Foreign Oil By Allowing Production To Not Be Limited By Permit Restraints. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the measure and industry groups argue that the bill is essential to create jobs, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reduce gas prices for American consumers. They argue that the current leasing process is too onerous and does not allow for the timely development of resources once a lease or permit is awarded. New energy production, they say, is one of the best ways to grow the economy and create new jobs. While they acknowledge that recent increases in domestic energy production have occurred, they note that production is happening on private lands and charge that the Obama administration has locked away most federal lands. Increasing production on federal lands, they say, would lead to a substantial surge in the creation of energy-related jobs, boost the economy at both the local and national levels and generate significant federal revenues from oil and gas royalties." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Roll Back Increased Fees And Royalties For Onshore And Offshore Oil And Gas Development Imposed By The Inflation Reduction Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "roll back increased fees and royalties for onshore and offshore oil and gas development and production established by the 2022 budget reconciliation package (PL 117-69)." 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]
2023: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Preserved The Fees And Royalties On Onshore And Offshore Oil And Gas Development Imposed By The Inflation Reduction Act. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "strike a section of the bill that would roll back fees and royalties on onshore and offshore oil and gas development imposed by the 2022 budget reconciliation package (PL 117-169)." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 205 to 228. [House Vote 176, 3/30/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 157]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing Royalty Rates And Fees For Oil And Gas Drilling Leases And Cancelling Certain Offshore Leases. In November 2021, Schweikert voted against the Build Back Better act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "raise royalty rates and fees for oil and gas drilling leases and cancel or ban certain offshore leases." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-213. [House Vote 385, 11/19/21; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Re-Establishing The Superfund Tax On Crude Oil At 16.4 Cents Per Barrel. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would "reinstate the Superfund tax on crude oil at a rate of 16.4 cents per barrel." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring Oil Transported By The Keystone XL Pipeline To Be Considered Crude Oil For Tax Purposes. In February 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against requiring oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline to be considered crude oil. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to a commit would have, "certify[ied] to the president that diluted bitumen and other materials derived from tar sands or oil sands transported through the Keystone XL pipeline will be treated as crude oil for the purposes of determining contributions for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund." The underlying legislation was the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. The vote was on the motion to commit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 181 to 241. [House Vote 74, 2/11/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/15]
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Provides Federal Funds To Respond To Oil Spills In A Timely Fashion Funded By An 8 Cent Excise Tax; The IRS Determined That Oil Sands-Derived Cruise Oils Are Not Subject To The Excise Tax. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) provides an immediate source of federal funding to respond to oil spills in a timely manner. Monies from the OSLTF can be used to respond to a wide variety of oil types, including oil sands-derived crude oils. The OSLTF is primarily financed by an 8-cents per-barrel tax on domestic crude oil and imported crude oil and petroleum products. In the context of the per-barrel OSLTF tax provision, a 1980 House committee report stated: 'the term crude oil does not include synthetic petroleum, e.g., shale oil, liquids from coal, tar sands, or biomass, or refined oil.' Based on that statement, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concluded that oil sands-derived crude oils are not subject to the OSLTF excise tax." [Congressional Research Service R43128, 1/22/15]
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA): Motion Would Require TransCanada To Pay The Same-Barrel Fee For Its Tar Sands Oil As It Does For Regular Crude. In a floor speech, Rep. Capps said, "My amendment would simply require TransCanada to certify that it will pay the same per-barrel fee for its tar sands oil as it does for its regular crude. It would ensure that TransCanada---and not taxpayers---pay to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill." [Congressional Record, 2/11/15]
Rep. Wayne Whitefield (R-KY): President Obama Created The Problem; Amendment Is A Ruse To Kill The Bill. In a floor speech on a similar amendment from 2014, Rep. Whitefield said, "I would like to remind the gentlewoman that President Obama, through a regulation, decided that diluted bitumen is not crude oil for the purposes of the trust fund tax, so the problem was created by President Obama and the IRS. [...] while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from California, this is simply a ruse to kill the bill." [Congressional Record, 11/13/14]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring Oil Transported By The Keystone XL Pipeline To Be Considered Crude Oil For Tax Purposes. In November 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against requiring oil transported by the Keystone XL pipeline to be considered crude oil. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to a recommit would have, "require that oil transported by the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline be considered crude oil for the purposes of determining its contributions to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund." The underlying legislation was a bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 192 to 224. [House Vote 518, 11/14/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/14]
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Provides Federal Funds To Respond To Oil Spills In A Timely Fashion Funded By An 8 Cent Excise Tax; The IRS Determined That Oil Sands-Derived Cruise Oils Are Not Subject To The Excise Tax. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) provides an immediate source of federal funding to respond to oil spills in a timely manner. Monies from the OSLTF can be used to respond to a wide variety of oil types, including oil sands-derived crude oils. The OSLTF is primarily financed by an 8-cents per-barrel tax on domestic crude oil and imported crude oil and petroleum products. In the context of the per-barrel OSLTF tax provision, a 1980 House committee report stated: 'the term crude oil does not include synthetic petroleum, e.g., shale oil, liquids from coal, tar sands, or biomass, or refined oil.' Based on that statement, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concluded that oil sands-derived crude oils are not subject to the OSLTF excise tax." [Congressional Research Service R43128, 1/22/15]
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA): "If Keystone XL Is Approved, The Pipeline's Tar Sands Oil Will Literally Get A Free Ride Through The United States." In a floor speech, Rep. Capps said, "But TransCanada is currently exempt from contributing to the trust fund for Keystone because tar sands oil is not considered crude oil for purposes of the program. If Keystone XL is approved, the pipeline's tar sands oil will literally get a free ride through the United States. If there is a spill, taxpayers and local communities---not those responsible--- could be stuck with the cleanup bill. This makes no sense. TransCanada and all tar sands oil companies should have to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund." [Congressional Record, 11/13/14]
Rep. Wayne Whitefield (R-KY): President Obama Created The Problem; Amendment Is A Ruse To Kill The Bill. In a floor speech, Rep. Whitefield said, "I would like to remind the gentlewoman that President Obama, through a regulation, decided that diluted bitumen is not crude oil for the purposes of the trust fund tax, so the problem was created by President Obama and the IRS. [...] while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from California, this is simply a ruse to kill the bill." [Congressional Record, 11/13/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Approve Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline's Northern Portion As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that would declare that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. According to Congressional Quarterly, the provision "declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska. Additionally, it deems various environmental impact statements by federal agencies involved with permitting decisions related to the proposed pipeline to have satisfied current requirements, including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act." 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 take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Would Carry Crude Oil From Canadian Oil Sands, North Dakota And Montana To Nebraska Market And Gulf Coast Refineries. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Required Presidential Approval, Including Environmental Review, Because It Would Cross U.S.-Canada Border. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2011: Decision On 2008 Pipeline Permit Application Delayed By Environmental Concerns Because Proposed Route Crossed Nebraska's Sand Hills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "TransCanada first applied to the State Department in 2008 for a permit to build the pipeline. During review of the project's environmental impact statement in 2011, concerns were raised regarding the routing of the pipeline through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska. Consequently, the department in November 2011 announced that it needed to conduct an assessment of alternative routes that avoid the Sand Hills, and TransCanada and the Nebraska state government agreed to identify an alternative route." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
December 2011: At Behest Of Republicans, The 2011 Payroll Tax Extension Law Required Decision On Permit Within 60 Days; President Obama Then Decided To Deny The Permit, Citing Lack Of Time. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Arguing that the pipeline would create jobs, however, congressional Republicans included provisions in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (PL 112-78) that required the administration to issue a permit for the project within 60 days unless the president publicly determined that the project was not in the national interest. The next month, in January 2012, the State Department with the president's consent denied the Keystone XL permit, citing insufficient time to assess a reconfigured project." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
May 2012: TransCanada Submitted Revised Proposal For Northern Part Of Pipeline That Avoided Sand Hills, Which Nebraska Approved. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application to the State Department for a reconfigured project running from the Canadian border to the market hub in Steele City, Neb., with route options further east in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills region. TransCanada later submitted to Nebraska its preferred option among those routes, which the governor of Nebraska approved in January 2013." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2013: EPA Challenged State Department Environmental Review Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Oil Spill Response Requirements And Pipeline's Traverse Of Massive Ogallala Aquifer; President Obama Must Resolve Such Challenges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On March 1, 2013, the State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the modified proposal and opened up a public comment period, during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) objected to State's environmental review. Among its objections, EPA recommended that the department reassess the amount of additional greenhouse gas that would be emitted by further development of Canada's oil sands because of the pipeline and specify how TransCanada would be required to respond in the event of an oil spill. EPA also recommended that State look at relocating the pipeline so it does not cross over the Ogallala aquifer; the aquifer, which runs roughly north to south from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico, is one of the largest freshwater aquifer systems in the world. As long as EPA continues to challenge the State Department's environmental review, State cannot issue a ruling on its own as to whether the revised Keystone XL project serves the national interest. Under current law, when another agency challenges such a national interest determination, the decision to make that determination (and effectively approve or reject the proposal) becomes the president's to make." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Supporters Argue Pipeline Would Reduce U.S. Dependence On Oil From OPEC, Create 20,000 Jobs Directly, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Indirectly, And Would Not Affect The Environment Significantly. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that the pipeline, which would increase the amount of crude oil the U.S. receives from Canada, would advance the security and diversity of the United States' petroleum supply and benefit the U.S. economically. They say increasing the flow of oil from Canada will reduce U.S. reliance on energy imports from OPEC nations and immediately make the U.S. less vulnerable to political and security-related disruptions in the Middle East and Venezuela. And the pipeline would produce significant economic benefits, they claim, creating 20,000 jobs directly and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly, both in building the pipeline and in the refining of crude oil, which is why many labor unions support the pipeline. Proponents also say building the pipeline will not have a significant environmental impact, contending that Canada will develop and sell oil from the Alberta fields regardless of whether the pipeline is built. In fact, they say, blocking construction of the pipeline would force the oil to be transported by ships and trains, which could produce greater levels of greenhouse gases and be more susceptible to accidents and oil spills. They say pipeline transport is much safer and note that TransCanada says it will construct one of the safest pipelines ever built, including such features as 24-hour monitoring of the pipeline and the ability to shut off any section of the line within 15 minutes of detecting a problem. The company also proposes to bury the pipe more deeply than is common." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
Pipeline Opponents Argue Tar Sands Oil Will Increase U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Proposed Route Will Risk Eight States' Fresh Water Supply With A Devastating Oil Spill, Yet The Economic Benefits Will Not Be Significant. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents highlight environmental concerns regarding oil sands and the pipeline, and they argue that it won't provide any meaningful economic benefit to the United States. They say building the pipeline will promote further development of the Alberta oil sands, which will dramatically increase the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the production of tar sands oil generates three times more carbon emissions than the production of conventional oil. [...] Opponents also argue that the proposed route for the pipeline carries its own high risks. Although the revised route avoids the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, they note, it still crosses over the critical Ogallala aquifer, which provides fresh water for eight states, and they say the type of oil to be transported by the pipeline is particularly threatening. Specifically, the crude extracted from the Alberta oil sands is a heavy, black, viscous oil that is expected to be blended with other toxic hydrocarbons for pipeline transport and which sinks in water. Pointing to recent pipeline spills of a similar crude, in Michigan in 2010 and in Arkansas this year, opponents say a spill into the Ogallala aquifer could be environmentally and economically devastating to local communities and nearly impossible to clean up." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/20/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Require The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission To Approve Or Deny An Application For Pipeline Construction Within 12 Months Of Receiving A Complete Application As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "[set] statutory deadlines for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other federal agencies to act when considering certification or permits for the construction or expansion of natural gas pipelines. Specifically, it [would have] require[d] FERC to approve or deny an application for a pipeline construction certificate for 'pre-filed' projects within 12 months of receiving a complete application." 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 take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Supporters Argued The Legislation Would Simplify The Pipeline Approval Process And Insisted The Legislation Did Not "Decrease The Environmental Review Process Or Weaken Any Environmental Laws." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Proponents of the bill argue that it simply codifies existing regulations and requires FERC to meet deadlines in order to bring certainty to the pipeline approval process so that businesses may better plan. It does not, they note, decrease the environmental review process or weaken any environmental laws, nor does it change any other existing authorities or review requirements. Although most certification applications are granted or denied within 12 months of the application, they say the bill will ensure that the timeline continues to be met as natural gas production increases and the need for infrastructure continues to grow." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
Opponents Argued The Bill Could Lead To FERC Denying Permits If They Felt There Was Insufficient Time To Review And Would Lengthen The Process If Businesses Appealed The Decision. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill argue that statutory deadlines are unnecessary. FERC already has in place regulations requiring other federal agencies to grant or deny permits within 90 days of the final environmental statement being published, they note, and FERC itself decides most major certification applications within 12 months. Setting statutory deadlines, they say, may cause FERC and other federal agencies to arbitrarily deny certification or permits if they feel they have insufficient time for review --- thus forcing businesses to appeal the decisions or reapply for certification, thereby lengthening the process." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/13]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring That Land Owners Are Notified When Federally Owned Minerals Beneath Their Land Has Been Leased For Oil And Gas Development. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d]the Department of the Interior to notify land owners when federally owned minerals beneath their land have been leased for oil and gas development." 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 206 to 216. [House Vote 663, 12/2/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/2/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 860; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Reduce Federal Regulations On Energy Development On Native American Lands And Voted To Exempt Native American Lands From Hydraulic Fracking Rules. In October 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that would reduce federal regulations in order to expedite energy development on Native American lands. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "reduce[d] federal regulations on the development of Indian lands to expedite the development of energy. As amended, the bill would [have] allow[ed] state, tribe, and local governments in an affected area to continue to comment on an environmental impact statement. Further, the bill would [have] create[d] a demonstration project with Indian tribes to perform administrative, management, and other functions of programs of the Tribal Forest Protection Act." The vote was on the legislation. The House passed the bill by a vote of 254 to 173. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 544, 10/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 538]
Millions Of Acres Of Native American Land Are Held By The Federal Government; Tribes Can Enter Into A Tribal Energy Resource Agreement With The Interior Department To Develop Energy Leasing After A Review, But No Tribe Has Entered Into Such An Agreement. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Interior Department holds 56 million acres of land in trust or restricted status for the benefit of American Indian tribes and individual Indians. Alaska Native Corporations own 44 million acres of fee land (not under the jurisdiction of the department) in Alaska. A number of Indian reservations contain large accumulations of known and prospective mineral resources. [...] Native American tribes and individual Native American landowners regularly encounter obstacles not encountered on leases of private and state lands. Generally, federal law requires the Interior Department's approval before a tribal lease is entered into with an energy developer. [...] The 2005 Energy Policy Act (PL 109-58) authorized tribes to enter into Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) with Interior. Under a TERA, a tribe may develop energy leasing rules that, after review and approval by the department, govern the tribe's leasing of its lands for energy development purposes. [...] However, no tribe has yet successfully entered into a TERA with the government. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says no such agreements have been made because of the uncertainty over TERA regulations, limited tribal capacity and costs associated with assuming activities currently conducted by federal agencies, and a complex application process." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Legislation Requires The Interior Department To Complete Review Of Proposed Projects Within 30 Days After Receiving. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure takes numerous actions to expedite the reviews of proposed energy projects on tribal lands. It requires the Interior Department to fully act on appraisals of proposed projects within 30 days of receiving the appraisal request. If the appraisal is not approved or disapproved within 60 days, it would be deemed to be automatically approved. Appraisals, which examine whether or not a project would benefit the tribe, must be conducted by the department, the Indian tribe or a certified third-party appraiser under contract with the tribe." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Legislation Limits Judicial Review For Energy Projects On Native American Lands By Forcing All Judicial Actions To Start In The D.C. District Court; Legislation Also Bars Courts From Awarding Attorneys' Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill limits judicial reviews of energy projects on Indian lands, as well as energy projects anywhere else in cases where an Indian tribe is a partner in the project. Specifically, all judicial actions arising from Interior's review of a project must be heard by the D.C. District Court, with appeals going to the D.C. appellate court. Such cases must be filed within 60 days of Interior taking final action on a project and must be resolved by the court 'as expeditiously as possible,' but no longer than 180 days after it was filed. The measure bars courts from awarding attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA; PL 96-481) for such lawsuits, thereby prohibiting the federal government from paying attorneys' fees to plaintiffs." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Legislation Also Bars The Interior Department From Applying Any Fracking Rules To Native American Lands Without The Tribe's Consent. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also bars any rules developed by the Interior Department (DOI) regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing for oil or gas production from applying to projects on Indian lands, except with the express consent of that tribe." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Bill Supporters, Mainly Republicans, Argue That Current Rules Prevent Native American Tribes From Fully Maximizing Energy Development And Thus Potential Economic Gain. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters, mainly Republicans and the energy industry, say the current federal regulatory scheme impedes historically impoverished tribes from fully realizing the large and growing economic potential of developing their own natural resources. Because tribes with large energy resources tend to be located in rural areas, development of these resources offers one of the few nongovernmental means available for them to create jobs and a revenue stream that would allow them to meet member demands for tribal services or activities, investment in the local community and new energy supplies to meet consumer demand. According to a GAO report, tribes lost more than $95 million in energy-related revenues because of bureaucratic delays associated with the approval of energy projects." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Administration Opposed Legislation In Part Because It Sets Unrealistic Deadlines And Prohibits Awards Under The Equal Access To Justice Act. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "While the Administration supports the need to facilitate energy development in Indian Country, it does not support H.R. 538, the "Native American Energy Act." The bill would undermine public participation and transparency of review of projects on Indian lands under the National Environmental Policy Act, set unrealistic deadlines and remove oversight for appraisals of Indian lands or trust assets, and prohibit awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act or payment of fees or expenses to a plaintiff from the Judgment Fund in energy-related actions." [Statement of Administration Policy, 10/7/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Lifting The Ban On The Export Of Crude Oil As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against lifting the ban on the exportation of crude oil. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "allow[ed] the export of crude oil produced in the United States by removing the export ban imposed by the 1975 and it prohibits U.S. officials from imposing or enforcing restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports. It would not, however, preclude the president from prohibiting U.S. crude oil exports in response to foreign threats." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Ban Began In 1975 In Response To The Arab Oil Embargo. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The existing ban on the export of U.S. oil was first established in 1975 --- in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, government price controls and efforts by U.S. producers to avoid those price controls by exporting U.S. oil --- with enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (PL 94-163). That law allowed the president, acting through the Commerce Department, to establish rules prohibiting the export of U.S. crude oil. Since then, and in conjunction with other laws since enacted, exports of U.S. crude oil have effectively been banned, although the president may allow certain exports on a case-by-case basis if they are determined to be in the national interest." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/17/15]
Ban Opponents Say That Lifting The Ban Increases World-Wide Oil Prices And Would Encourage Further U.S. Production. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They note that with recent increases in production, the United States is now the world's second-largest producer of oil and that if U.S. crude could be exported it would help bring down oil prices in world markets, which in turn would help U.S. consumers by reducing gas prices since gas prices are tied primarily to worldwide oil costs. Supporters say the ability to sell on the world market would also encourage further U.S. production, which would directly result in the creation of more good-paying jobs in the oil industry, further boosting the U.S. economy. Exporting U.S. oil would also boost the nation's geopolitical standing, they argue, by reducing the dependence of U.S. allies on energy from Russia." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/15]
Natural Resources Defense Council: Lifting The Ban Benefits Oil Companies At The Expense Of American Consumers And "Flies In The Face Of Other Action Being Taken To Reduce Oil Use And Attack Climate Change." According to The Hill, "The Natural Resources Defense Council applauded many provisions of the bill, including the fact that many potential provisions blocking environmental rules were left out. 'The major disappointment in the deal is the lifting of the ban on exporting U.S. crude oil,' said Rhea Suh, the group's president. 'Republican leaders made this one of their top priorities even though it benefits oil companies at the expense of American consumers and refinery workers,' she said. 'The move flies in the face of other actions being taken to reduce oil use and attack climate change.'" [The Hill, 12/16/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Oil Export Ban As Part Of A Bill That Overhauled Federal Energy Policy. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation repealed the ban on oil exports. According to Reuters, the legislation was "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 Allow Crude Oil Exports By Lifting The 1975 Ban. In December 2015, Schweikert voted to lift the ban on crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "allow[ed] the export of crude oil produced in the United States by removing the export ban imposed by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The amendment would [have] prohibit[ed] U.S. officials from imposing or enforcing restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports, and would [have] require[d] separate reports on how lifting the ban will affect greenhouse gas emissions, national security, and jobs for veterans and women." The underlying legislation was H.R. 8, an energy security and infrastructure bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 255 to 168. The House later passed the legislation, but the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 664, 12/2/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/2/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 681; Congressional Actions, H.R 8]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Recommended Opening Up Additional Federal Lands And Water To Oil And Gas Development And To Repeal The Current Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Exports. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which recommended opening up additional federal lands to oil and gas development to repeal the current ban on U.S. crude oil exports. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget recommends opening up additional federal lands and waters to oil and gas development and repealing the current ban on U.S. exports of crude oil." It also calls for expanding timber harvests on federal lands The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Increased EPA Funding For Oil Spill Programs By $5 Million. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment increasing funding for the EPA's Oil Spill Programs by $5 million. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "increase funding for EPA Inland Oil Spill Programs by $5 million, offset by an equal reduction to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management." The underlying measure was the FY 2016 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 184 to 243. [House Vote 394, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 544; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA): Amendment Would Have Increased Funding For Local Response And Preparedness Training for Inland Oil Spills. According to a press release from the Office of Representative Lois Capps, "An amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (CA-24) to increase funding for local response and preparedness training for inland oil spills was voted on by the full House of Representatives. The importance of robust spill response preparation and training was highlighted by the response to the May 19th Plains Oil Spill along the Gaviota Coast." [Press Release -- Office Of Representative Lois Capps, 7/8/15]
Rep Lois Capps (D-CA): The Amendment's Funding Would Be Offset With Bureau Of Ocean Energy Management Funding Intended For New Offshore Oil And Gas Leasing. In a floor speech, Rep. Capps said, "The funding increase, however, would be offset by reducing the conventional energy account at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOME, by an equal amount. I want to be clear. This funding reduction for BOME is intended to target the funding used for new offshore oil and gas leasing. BOME will continue to fund safety operations and environmental assessments." [Congressional Record, 6/25/15]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): EPA's Response To Oil Spills Was An "Authorizing Issue, Not An Appropriating Issue." In a floor speech, Rep. Calvert said, "Now, personally, I think EPA should have direct access to that trust fund to avoid the delays, these administrative reimbursement delays, when responding to an oil spill such as what happened in California. However, that is an authorizing issue, not an appropriating issue. That is the proper place because those dollars will be there eventually to clean that up, and we just need to clean up the bureaucracy to have more immediacy in that process." [Congressional Record, 6/25/15]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against A $10 Per-Barrel Tax On Oil Proposed By President Obama. In June 2016, Schweikert voted for a concurrent resolution expressing the sense that Congress is opposed to a $10 per-barrel tax on oil. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "express[ed] a sense of Congress in opposition to the president's proposed $10-per-barrel tax on oil. It also would [have] express[ed] a sense of Congress that lawmakers, in considering future policy, should review potential harms of new taxes on industries that have seen job, revenue and production cuts." The vote was on passage. The House adopted the legislation by a vote of 253 to 144. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 296, 6/10/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/16; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
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]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing States To Get A Safety Review Of A Pipeline Transportation Infrastructure Project If Requested. In November 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Transportation secretary to conduct a safety review of pipeline transportation infrastructure project if requested by a state or tribal government." The underlying legislation was a surface transportation reauthorization. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 160 to 263. [House Vote 590, 11/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/3/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 761; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 734; Congressional Quarterly, H.R. 22]
2015: Schweikert Vote Against Increasing Pipeline Safety Funding. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would increase pipeline safety funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment, "would increase funding for pipeline safety by $28 million, all of which would come from the Pipeline Safety Fund." The underlying bill was HR 2577, which according to Congressional Quarterly was a "bill making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2016, and for other purposes." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 202 to 222. [House Vote 305, 6/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/15; Congress.gov, Accessed 10/5/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/5/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA): "It Is No Secret That Federal Pipeline Safety Standards Are In Serious Need Of Improvement." Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) said in a House floor speech, "it is no secret that Federal pipeline safety standards are in serious need of improvement. Despite repeated bipartisan efforts to strengthen these standards, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, has dragged its feet on implementing the new rules. Not only has this agency failed to keep up with new statutory requirements, they struggle to even enforce the rules they already have on the books. There are several reasons for this, including rapid growth in the miles of new pipelines to inspect and the need to compete with the private sector for the best talent while using limited resources." [Congressional Record, 6/3/15]
Rep. David Price (D-NC) Said That The "Amendment Would Greatly Improve Our Capacity To Address" The Problem Of Pipeline Safety. According to Congressional Record, Rep. David Price (D-NC) said in a House floor speech, "I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I want to offer my strong support. Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about annualizing the funding--in other words, bringing these people on board permanently--for pipeline safety inspectors who were hired in fiscal year 2015. We are also talking about the better coordination of enforcement activities between Federal, State, and local officials. I would like to remind my colleagues we have 2.6 million miles of pipeline across this country. I think the number is maybe 548 personnel in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. This is an enormous task. The gentlewoman's amendment would greatly improve our capacity to address this challenge, and I urge its adoption." [Congressional Record, 6/3/15]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) "It Is Not Really Clear Whether Or Not The Next Authorization Would Accommodate This Funding Fee Level." According to Congressional Record, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) said in a House floor speech that, "The authorization for this program expires this year, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, there are many questions, and it is not really clear whether or not the next authorization would accommodate this funding fee level. I understand the gentlewoman's passion, but I must respectfully urge a 'no' vote on this amendment." [Congressional Record, 6/3/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Need For A Presidential Permit To Approve Oil And Gas Pipelines And Electrical Transmission Lines That Cross The U.S. Border Into Canada And Mexico As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "establishe[d] a new system for the approval and permitting of oil and gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines that cross the U.S. border into Canada and Mexico --- eliminating the current system created by executive orders under which a presidential permit must be issued." 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 take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
The Bill Required Oil And Gas Pipeline Sponsors And Facilities Crossing The U.S. Border To Receive "Certificate Of Crossing" From Federal Agencies For Their Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that sponsors of oil pipelines and electricity transmission facilities that cross the U.S. border receive a 'certificate of crossing' from the appropriate federal agency in order to build or modify their projects." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
The Bill Required Cross-Border Oil Pipeline Requests To Be Submitted To The Department Of State And Electric Transmission Lines To Be Submitted To The Department Of Energy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the measure, requests for approval of cross-border oil pipelines would be submitted to the State Department and requests for electric transmission lines would be submitted to the Energy Department --- and the requests must be approved within 120 days of an environmental review being completed unless the relevant department finds that the project is not in the public interest of the United States." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
The Bill Required Requests To Be Approved Within 120 Days Of Environmental Reviews. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the measure, requests for approval of cross-border oil pipelines would be submitted to the State Department and requests for electric transmission lines would be submitted to the Energy Department --- and the requests must be approved within 120 days of an environmental review being completed unless the relevant department finds that the project is not in the public interest of the United States." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Supporters Argued The Bill Eliminated The Need For Presidential Permit Approval For Cross-Border Pipelines And Electrical Transmission Facilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters, primarily Republicans, argue that the current review and approval system for cross-border pipelines and electrical transmission facilities has a number of problems and that a more orderly system is needed. The current process that requires presidential permits was created in an ad hoc fashion by many presidents, and because it lacks any statutory guidance, it allows for shifting standards of how projects are to be approved, the manner in which they are approved, and the agency or official that makes the final decision, they say. Moreover, it currently requires that project sponsors obtain a presidential permit not just for a new project but also for any existing project that previously was approved but which is being modified or is undergoing a change in ownership." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Supporters Argued The Bill Would Eliminate The "Lack Of Certainty" That "Creates A Chilling Effect On Private Investments For Such Projects." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Such a lack of certainty creates a chilling effect on private investment for such projects, supporters argue. It also makes it more difficult for opponents to challenge projects that received presidential permits in court, given that courts are highly unlikely to challenge decisions that were ultimately left to the president. The bill, they say, would simply exercise Congress' constitutional authority to regulate commerce and, in doing so, would create a more rational system and reassure both the private industry here at home as well as in Canada and Mexico that a modern, transparent and predictable regulatory process for approving cross-border oil and natural gas pipelines and transmission lines is a priority." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Opponents Said The Bill Would "Substantially" Weaken The Process For Federal Approval And "Tips The Scale In Favor Of Approving Controversial Projects By Establishing A Presumption That These Projects Should Be Approved." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents, primarily Democrats, argue that the bill would substantially weaken the process for federal approval of oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. It tips the scale in favor of approving controversial projects by establishing a presumption that these projects should be approved, shifting the burden of proof to project opponents to show that the project is not in the public interest, they say. Opponents also note that it allows projects that are not found to be in the public interest under the current permitting process to reapply under the new weaker process --- which could be used to revive the Keystone XL pipeline project if the administration ends up rejecting the pending application." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
Opponents Said The Bill "Exempt[ed] Cross-Border Projects From Meaningful Environmental Review." According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill also effectively exempts cross-border projects from meaningful environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act by dramatically narrowing the focus of that review, they argue. Under the bill, the approval process, and hence the NEPA review, applies only to the 'cross-border segment' --- i.e., the portion that physically crosses the border --- thus limiting review to just a sliver of a much larger project. And by removing any Energy Department approval process for the export of natural gas to Canada or Mexico, it also would allow for unlimited exports of liquified natural gas (LNG) to any destination in the world as long as the LNG first goes through Canada or Mexico." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/14]
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]
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]
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]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2018 Congressional Progressive Caucus's Budget Resolution, Which Among Other Things, Increased Taxes On The Rich And Corporations And Called For Closing Loopholes And Subsidies For Coal, Oil And Natural Gas. In October 2017, Schweikert voted against an FY 2018 CPC budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution would "provide for $3.8 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would raise overall spending by $3.5 trillion over 10 years and would increase revenues by $8.2 trillion over the same period through policies that would increase taxes for corporations and high-income individuals. It would repeal the Budget Control Act sequester and caps on discretionary spending, would modify the tax code by adding five higher marginal tax rates, would create a public insurance option to be sold within the current health insurance exchanges and would call for implementation of comprehensive immigration overhaul." In addition, according to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, "Closes tax loopholes and ends subsidies provided to oil, gas and coal companies." The amendment was a substitute amendment for the GOP's FY 2018 budget resolution in part designed to start the process for tax reform. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 108 to 314. [House Vote 553, 10/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/4/17; Congressional Progressive Caucus, Accessed 10/12/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 453; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
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]