2024: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Reducing The Salary Of Michael Regan,
The Administrator Of The Environmental Protection Agency, To $1. In
July 2024, Fitzpatrick voted against , according to Congressional
Quarterly, "amendment no. 7 that would reduce to $1 the salary of EPA
Administrator Michael Regan." The vote was on the amendment. The
underlying legislation was the FY 2025 Interior-Environment
appropriations. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 146 to
264. [House Vote 381,
7/23/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/23/24;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.1128;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8998]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Reducing The Salary Of Ya-Wei (Jake)
Li, The Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs, To $1. In
July 2024, Fitzpatrick voted against , according to Congressional
Quarterly, "amendment no. 57 that would reduce to $1 the salary of the
EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs Ya-Wei
(Jake) Li." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation
was the FY 2025 Interior-Environment appropriations. The House rejected
the amendment by a vote of 148 to 267. [House Vote 390,
7/24/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/24/24;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.1157;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8998]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Prohibiting The Environmental
Protection Agency From Taking "Backstop Actions" On Limits On Chesapeake
Bay Pollutants. In July 2024, Fitzpatrick voted against , according to
Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 82 that would prohibit the use
of funds provided by the bill for the EPA to take any 'backstop' actions
related to the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for pollutants
from agricultural runoff." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying
legislation was the FY 2025 Interior-Environment appropriations. The
House rejected the amendment by a vote of 185 to 231. [House Vote 395,
7/24/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/24/24;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.1167;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8998]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted To Disapprove A September 2020 Environmental
Protection Agency Rule That Rescinded Methane Emissions Standards. In
June 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for a joint resolution which would,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for congressional
disapproval of a September 2020 Environmental Protection Agency rule
that reversed 2012 and 2016 rules establishing emission standards -- or
new source performance standards -- to limit the amount of methane and
volatile organic compounds that can be released in the production,
processing, transportation and storage of oil and natural gas.
Specifically, the 2020 rule rescinded the methane-specific standards and
rescinded the applicability of all standards to transportation and
storage activities. The rule also required the EPA, before promulgating
new air pollutant standards, to determine that the pollutant causes or
contributes significantly to dangerous air pollution. The rule took
effect on September 14, 2020. Under the provisions of the joint
resolution, the 2020 rule would have no force or effect, and the
Obama-era emission standards would be effectively reinstated." The vote
was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of
229-191, thus the resolution was sent to the President and it ultimately
became law. [House Vote 185,
6/25/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/25/21;
Congressional Actions, S.J. Res.
14]
The Trump Administration Replaced The Obama-Era Rule Limited
Methane Missions, A Byproduct For Natural Gas Drilling That Is
Responsible For A Fourth Of The "World's Warming Since The 1800s,"
With A Weaker Standard In August 2020. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "The Senate voted Wednesday to revive an Obama-era rule
to limit the emissions of methane, a highly potent heat-trapping gas
byproduct of drilling for natural gas that is responsible for about
one-quarter of the world's warming since the 1800s. By a vote of
52-42, the Senate passed a joint resolution (S J Res 14) to
reinstate a rule the EPA put in place in 2016 before the Trump
administration rescinded it and implemented a weaker standard in
August of last year." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/28/21]
The Reinstated Obama-Era Rule Would Require Oil And Gas Companies
To Observe For Any Methane Leaks And Fix Faulty Equipment.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "Once reactivated, the EPA
rule would require oil and gas companies to monitor for methane
leaks at their facilities and repair faulty equipment."
[Congressional Quarterly,
4/28/21]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing
Appropriations To Reenact Emergency Affirmative Defense Positions For
Stationary Sources Of Air Pollution. In June 2019, Fitzpatrick voted
against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly,
"prohibit the use of funds made available by the bill to enforce a June
2016 Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding emission standards
for the oil and natural gas sector." The vote was on adoption of the
amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191-241.
[House Vote 385,
6/20/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/20/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.442;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.3055]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Prohibiting The Environmental
Protection Agency From Implementing Rules Regarding Air Pollution
Emissions. In July 2024, Fitzpatrick voted against , according to
Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 81 that would prohibit the use
of funds provided by the bill for the EPA to give formal notification
under, or prepare, propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule
or recommendation pursuant to current law regarding emissions in the
U.S. that contribute to air pollution that endangers public health in
other countries." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying
legislation was the FY 2025 Interior-Environment appropriations. The
House rejected the amendment by a vote of 207 to 211. [House Vote 394,
7/24/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/24/24;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.1166;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8998]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Providing $3 Billion For
Environmental And Climate Justice Block Grants For Community Projects To
Address Pollution, Lowering Emissions, Climate Resiliency And Public
Engagement. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would provide "$3 billion for
new EPA environmental and climate justice block grants for community-led
activities to address pollution, emission reduction, climate resiliency
and public engagement." 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]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted For The FY 2023 Omnibus Spending Package,
Which Provided $38.9 Billion For The Interior Department, Environmental
Protection Agency And Related Agencies. In December 2022, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted to concur with the Senate
amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which would
"provide approximately $25.5 billion for the Agriculture Department and
related agencies; $82.4 billion for the Commerce and Justice
departments and science and related agencies; $797.7 billion for the
Defense Department; $54 billion for the Energy Department and federal
water projects; $27.6 billion for the Treasury Department, federal
judiciary and a number of executive agencies; $60.7 billion for the
Homeland Security Department; $38.9 billion for the Interior
Department, EPA and related agencies; $207.4 billion for the Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education departments and related
agencies; $6.9 billion for legislative branch entities; $154.2 billion
for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction, and related
agencies; $59.7 billion for the State Department and related agencies;
and $87.3 billion for the Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development departments and related agencies." The vote was on a motion
to concur. The House concurred with the Senate amendment by a vote of
225-201, thus bill was sent to President Biden and ultimately became
law. [House Vote 549,
12/23/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/23/22;
Congressional Actions, S.Amdt.
6552;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2617]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Appropriating $11.5 Billion To The
Environmental Protection Agency For FY 2023, Including Increased Funds
For Compliance And Enforcement, Clean Air Activities, And Environmental
Justice Programs. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would
provide "$11.5 billion for the EPA, including increased funding for
enforcement and compliance activities, clean air activities and
environmental justice programs." The vote was on passage. The House
passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate.
The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. Congress
passed and signed into law the FY 2023 Budget through H.R. 2617. [House
Vote 383, 7/20/22;
Congressional Quarterly,
7/20/22; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
8294]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Decreased
Funding For EPA Environmental Programs And Management By $294.9
Million, In Particular Environmental Justice Implementation And Training
Grants. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against en bloc amendments no. 5 to the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2023, which would, in part, "reduce funding for EPA
environmental programs and management by $294.9 million, intended to
reduce funding for environmental justice implementation and training
grants." The vote was on the adoption of amendments. The House rejected
the amendments by a vote 197-230. [House Vote 371,
7/19/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/19/22;
Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.
297;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8294]
2020: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2021 Four-Bill
Appropriations Package That Would Decrease Funding To The EPA By $564
Million. In July 2020, Fitzpatrick voted against an amendment to the
FY 2021 four-bill appropriations package that would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "decrease by $564 million funding for EPA
environmental programs and management expenses including travel
expenses, hire of passenger motor vehicles, operation of aircraft,
purchase of library memberships and other administrative costs." The
vote was on adoption. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of
155-219. [House Vote 164,
7/24/20; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/24/20;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.856;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.7608]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted For The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill,
Which Provided $9.1 Billion For The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Despite The Trump Administration's Proposal To Slash Funding. In
December 2019, Fitzpatrick voted for the FY 2020 minibus spending bill,
which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The bill provides $9.1 billion in net
appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) --- $208
million more than comparable FY 2019 funding and $2.8 billion (46%)
more than requested, according to the committee. The measure generally
rejects the deep reductions proposed by the administration for most EPA
activities, instead increasing most programs above the 2019 levels." The
vote was a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to
the motion by a vote of 297-120. The Senate later passed the bill and
the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 689,
12/17/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 12/17/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.1865]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing
Appropriations Defunding The EPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). In June 2019, Fitzpatrick voted against an amendment that
would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds
made available by the bill for the Environmental Protection Agency
integrated risk information system, a database containing information on
chemical hazards in the environment and their effects on human health."
The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the
amendment by a vote of 157-275. [House Vote 390,
6/20/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/20/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.449;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.3055]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted For An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing
Another Government Shutdown And Providing $8.8 Billion For The EPA.
In February 2019, Fitzpatrick voted for the FY 2019 consolidated
appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This
Conference Summary describes the agreement on H J Res 31, Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY 2019, which provides detailed, full-year
funding for all seven remaining FY 2019 spending bills ---thereby
completing the FY 2019 appropriations process. The centerpiece, Homeland
Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers
along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing,
along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding
--- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs
officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6
billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal
civilian employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill
by a vote of 300 to 128. The bill was later signed into law by the
president. [House Vote 87,
2/14/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/14/19; Congressional
Actions, H. J. Res.
31]
2018: Fitzpatrick Voted For The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus
Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017
Levels, Including A $763 Million Increase For The EPA. In March 2018,
Fitzpatrick voted for the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide
about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion
subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as
Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels
are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps
set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement
increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense
cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce
overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided
by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on
the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The
House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256
to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the
president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127,
3/22/18; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
1625]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Closing EPA Regional Offices. In
September 2017, Fitzpatrick voted for an amendment that would have,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the use of funds
made appropriated by the bill to close or consolidate any regional
office of the EPA." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle
for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the
amendment by a vote of 201 to 212. The House later passed the overall
bill. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation.
[House Vote 490,
9/13/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
370;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3354]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Cutting EPA Funding By $10.2
Million. In September 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against an amendment
that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d]
the EPA operations and maintenance funding by $10.2 million and would
transfer the savings to the spending reduction account." The underlying
legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus
appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 184
to 228. [House Vote 474,
9/7/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
342;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3354]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Increase EPA Funding By $1 Million. In
September 2017, Fitzpatrick voted for an amendment that would have,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d] the Department of
the Interior Office of the Secretary funding by $1 million, and would
[have] increase[d] funding for the EPA by the same amount." The
underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus
appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190
to 218. [House Vote 473,
9/7/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
339;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3354]
2020: Fitzpatrick Was Absent During A Vote On Strengthening EPA
Regulation Of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). In January
2020, Fitzpatrick missed a vote on the PFAS Action Act that would,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue a number of regulations and take certain
actions to address the impacts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Specifically, it would require the EPA to designate certain PFAS --
perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, as well as perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid and its salts -- as hazardous chemicals under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act."
The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 247-159.
[House Vote 13, 1/10/20;
Congressional Quarterly,
1/10/20; Congressional Actions,
H.R.535]
The PFAS Action Act Would Require The EPA To Clean Up Chemical
Linked To Cancer, Neurological Development Issues, And Reproductive
Problems. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Two dozen
Republicans joined Democrats to pass a massive bill that would start
a nationwide cleanup of widely used 'forever' chemicals that persist
in the environment and the human body [...] The chemicals have
been linked to numerous health problems, including cancers, thyroid
disease, neurological development issues and reproductive problems."
[Congressional Quarterly,
1/10/20]
The Bill Designated Certain PFAS As Hazardous Substances.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Bill would require the
EPA administrator, within one year of the bill's enactment, to
designate per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous
substances under the 1980 law that created federal Superfund sites
to clean up hazardous waste." [Congressional Quarterly,
1/7/20]
A "Hazardous Substance" Designation Would Require The EPA To
Investigate And Possibly Clean Up Releases Over A Certain
Threshold. According to the Environmental Working Group, "A
'hazardous substance' designation under Superfund triggers reporting
requirements for releases over a certain threshold. Anytime the
hazardous substance is released into the air, land or water in
amounts exceeding the threshold, it triggers an investigation and
potential cleanup. By contrast, when a substance is simply a
'pollutant or contaminant,' it must be shown to pose an 'imminent
and substantial danger' to public health before the site can be
investigated and cleaned up -- and, even then, the EPA has
considerable discretion over whether to pursue cleanup."
[Environmental Working Group,
7/3/19]
Republicans Opposed The Bill, Arguing It Was "Overly Aggressive"
And Would Curb Beneficial Uses Of The Chemicals. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "GOP lawmakers argued language in the bill
is overly aggressive, would unnecessarily hamper some beneficial use
of the chemicals --- perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS ---
in certain equipment and stigmatize some communities if designated
as Superfund sites because of the chemicals' presence."
[Congressional Quarterly,
1/10/20]
The White House Threatened To Veto The Bill. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The White House has threatened to veto the
bill in the unlikely event that it is passed by the
Republican-controlled Senate, saying it would impose unnecessary
financial burdens on states, local communities and businesses."
[Congressional Quarterly,
1/10/20]
League Of Conservation Voters: It Is "Long Past Due For The
Federal Government To Step In." According to the League of
Conservation Voters, "For too long, states and localities have been
forced to tackle [PFAS] in their communities with little support
--- it is long past time for the federal government to step in."
[League of Conservation Voters,
1/10/19]
2020: Fitzpatrick Was Absent During A Vote On Blocking PFAS From Being
Designated As Hazardous Substances. In January 2020, Fitzpatrick
missed a vote on an amendment to the PFAS Action Act that would,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill a section
requiring the EPA to designate certain PFAS as hazardous substances and
determine if all PFAS should be designated as such under existing
environmental law." The vote was on adoption. The House rejected the
amendment by a vote of 161-247. [House Vote 9,
1/10/20; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/10/20; Congressional
Actions,
H.Amdt.728;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.535]
Environmental Working Group: PFAS Are Currently Categorized As
"Pollutants Or Contaminants," Which "Significantly Limits The Power
Of The EPA" To Clean Up Pollution Caused By PFAS. According to the
Environmental Working Group, "Superfund distinguishes between
chemicals that have been designated as 'hazardous substances' and
things that are merely considered 'pollutants or contaminants.'
Under current law, PFAS chemicals are considered 'pollutants or
contaminants' but not 'hazardous substances.' This significantly
limits the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
states to clean up PFAS pollution." [Environmental Working Group,
7/3/19]
A "Hazardous Substance" Designation Would Require The EPA To
Investigate And Possibly Clean Up Releases Over A Certain
Threshold. According to the Environmental Working Group, "A
'hazardous substance' designation under Superfund triggers reporting
requirements for releases over a certain threshold. Anytime the
hazardous substance is released into the air, land or water in
amounts exceeding the threshold, it triggers an investigation and
potential cleanup. By contrast, when a substance is simply a
'pollutant or contaminant,' it must be shown to pose an 'imminent
and substantial danger' to public health before the site can be
investigated and cleaned up -- and, even then, the EPA has
considerable discretion over whether to pursue cleanup."
[Environmental Working Group,
7/3/19]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Designating Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances As Hazardous Substances, Therefore Prohibiting The Use Of
These Chemicals In The Military. In July 2019, Fitzpatrick voted
against an amendment to the House FY 2020 NDAA that would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "modify the rule (H Res 476) to make in order
two additional amendments to the Fiscal 2020 National Defense
Authorization Act (HR 2500). The amendments added to the rule include a
Dingell, D-Mich., amendment related to EPA designation of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous." The vote was on adoption. The
House adopted the amendment by a vote of 234-197. [House Vote 435,
7/10/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/10/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.506;
Congressional Actions,
H.Res.476;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.2500]
The Amendment Ended The Military's Use Of PFAS Chemicals Linked To
Cancer And Reproductive Harm. According to the Environmental
Working Group, "Yesterday, the House passed amendments to quickly
end the military's use of the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as
PFAS in firefighting foam and food packaging, and to expand efforts
to monitor for PFAS pollution. [...] PFAS chemicals linked to
cancer and reproductive harm have been found in the drinking water
of millions of Americans. Under current law, there are no limits
on PFAS discharges into the air and water, no requirement to filter
contaminated water, and no requirement to clean up legacy PFAS
contamination." [Environmental Working Group,
7/12/19]
A "Hazardous Substance" Designation Would Require The EPA To
Investigate And Possibly Clean Up Releases Over A Certain
Threshold. According to the Environmental Working Group, "A
'hazardous substance' designation under Superfund triggers reporting
requirements for releases over a certain threshold. Anytime the
hazardous substance is released into the air, land or water in
amounts exceeding the threshold, it triggers an investigation and
potential cleanup. By contrast, when a substance is simply a
'pollutant or contaminant,' it must be shown to pose an 'imminent
and substantial danger' to public health before the site can be
investigated and cleaned up -- and, even then, the EPA has
considerable discretion over whether to pursue cleanup."
[Environmental Working Group,
7/3/19]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted For An Amendment That Would Require The EPA To
Report On The Regulations From The Previous 15 Years That Lowered Energy
Independence And Security, Increased Regulatory Burdens Or Lowered
Energy Output, Or Hiked Energy Costs. In March 2023, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for an amendment to the Lower
Energy Costs Act, which would "require the EPA, in consultation with the
Energy Department and within 120 days of enactment, to submit a report
to Congress on EPA regulations during the 15-year period prior to
enactment that reduced energy independence and security, increased
regulatory burdens or decreased energy output for energy producers, or
increased energy costs for consumers in the United States." The vote was
on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a
vote of 245 to 189. [House Vote 169,
3/29/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/29/23;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1;
Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.
139]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Prohibiting The EPA From Making Rules
Unless The Rule Is Based On Research That Is Entirely Publically
Available. In March 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against prohibiting the
EPA from making rules unless the all the rule is based on research that
is entirely publically available. According to Congressional Quarterly,
the bill would have "prohibit[ed] the EPA from proposing, finalizing
or disseminating a rule, regulation or standard unless the scientific
and technical information on which the EPA's decisions relied is
publicly available for independent analysis. It would [have]
require[d] any personally identifiable information, trade secrets or
sensitive business information to be redacted prior to the publication
of the scientific information." The vote was on passage. The House
passed the legislation by a vote of 228 to 194. The Senate took no
substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 206,
3/29/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/29/17; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
1430]
The Bill Requires The EPA To Release All Materials Necessary To
Understand Its Conclusions. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Specifically, EPA must release all materials, data and associated
protocols necessary to understand and assess the conclusions made by
the agency; computer codes and models used in the creation and
analysis of such information; recorded factual materials; and
detailed descriptions of how to access and use such information. Any
personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or
financial information must be redacted prior to being made publicly
available, unless that person agrees to release, in writing, that
information.'" [Congressional Quarterly,
3/24/17]
Bill Opponents, Mostly Democrats Claimed That The Legislation
Would Prevent The EPA From Using Data That Is Kept Sealed Due To
Confidentially Agreements, Thereby Compromising The Quality Of The
Agencies' Work. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents,
mostly Democrats, argue that the bill imposes burdensome and costly
requirements that would effectively block EPA from using many
important research studies and thereby compromise the quality of its
work by forcing it to rely on less scientific data. The bill, they
say, is based on a false premise: that EPA relies on secret research
to make its decisions. While some nonpublic research is used, EPA
relies mostly on research that has been published in respected
journals after rigorous peer review, a formal process in which
experts review the research and have the opportunity to question and
challenge the author's data and assumptions. Valuable nonpublic
research used by EPA is also peer-reviewed and adds significantly to
EPA's knowledge base to make decisions, even though confidentiality
agreements prevent EPA from publicly releasing the research."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/24/17]
Supporters Of The Bill, Mostly Republicans, Believed That The EPA
Regulatory Process Is Both Hidden And Flawed. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Bill supporters, mostly Republicans, argue
that the underlying regulatory process at EPA is both hidden and
flawed. If the EPA has nothing to hide, and if its data justifies
its regulations, then the agency should make the information public,
they say. Major regulations proposed by EPA routinely have been
justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims, and the
bill would correct that by simply requiring the underlying data to
be made public --- a policy consistent with the data access
requirements of major scientific journals, the White House
Scientific Integrity Policy and the recommendations of independent
groups. They say Americans affected by EPA regulations have a right
to see the data and determine for themselves whether the agency's
actions are based on sound science or a partisan agenda."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/24/17]
2015: Fitzpatrick Voted Against A Bill That Would Modify The Selection
And Qualification Process For The EPA's Science Advisory Board. In
March 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against a bill that would modify the
qualifications and selection process for the EPA's Science Advisory
Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, "establish
a selection process for members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board. The
bill would require the board's members represent a variety of
scientific and technical viewpoints. It would require board member
nominees to disclose financial relationships that would be relevant to
EPA advisory activities. It would require the board to generally avoid
making policy determinations or recommendations to the EPA." The vote
was on passage and the House passed the bill 236 to 181. The Senate took
no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 208,
3/30/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/30/17; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
1029]
The EPA's Science Advisory Board, Established In 1978, Is To
Advise The Agency And Interested Congressional Committees; Board
Requires At Least Nine Members, Appointed By The EPA Administrator
For Three Year Terms. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The
Science Advisory Board within the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) was established in 1978 by the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act [...] to provide
scientific advice to the agency and interested congressional
committees as requested. According to the EPA, the board's mission
includes reviewing the quality and relevance of the scientific and
technical information being used or proposed as the basis for agency
regulations; reviewing research programs and the technical basis of
applied programs; reviewing generic approaches to regulatory
science, including guidelines governing the use of scientific and
technical information in regulatory decisions, and critiquing such
analytic methods as mathematical modeling; advising the agency on
broad scientific matters in science, technology, social and economic
issues; and advising the agency on emergency and other short-notice
programs. [...] The 1978 act establishing the board requires a
minimum of nine members who are appointed by the EPA administrator
to serve a three-year term and may be reappointed for a second term;
currently, the board contains 51 members. There are no statutory
guidelines governing the selection process for board members."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/17/15]
Opponents Of The Bill Claimed It Would Place "Industry-Funded
Scientists" On The EPA's Advisory Panel "At The Expense Of
Independent Scientists." According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Bill opponents, primarily Democrats, argue that it is a veiled
attempt to get industry-funded scientists on EPA's science advisory
panel at the expense of independent scientists from academic and
research institutions. The additional requirements that the bill
demands of the board are designed to keep it from getting anything
accomplished, they say, especially since it contains no additional
resources for the board to function. Additionally, opponents argue
that the bill requires the EPA to treat scientists who conduct
EPA-funded research, and who may have had a past contractual
relationship with the agency, as having a financial conflict of
interest while at the same time loosening the financial
conflict-of-interest standards for industry-funded experts. The
bill, they say, will skew the composition of the Science Advisory
Board and, in the process, diminish the sound science and good
judgment that EPA and the public have come to rely on."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/28/17]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Disapproving An EPA Rule That Imposed
Stricter Emissions Standards On Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In May 2023,
according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against a joint
resolution that would "provide for congressional disapproval of the
January 2023 EPA rule imposing more stringent emissions standards on
heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The rule requires heavy-duty vehicles,
starting in model year 2027, to comply with reduced emissions limits of
nitrogen oxides and other pollutants, both in real-world conditions and
laboratory-tested scenarios. It would also lengthen the period during
the engine's operational life when the reduced emissions standard must
be met. According to the EPA, the rule will reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions from heavy-duty trucks by almost 50 percent by 2045. The EPA
rule took effect on March 27, 2023. Under the joint resolution, the rule
would have no force or effect." The vote was on passage. The House
passed the resolution by a vote of 221 to 203, thus the resolution was
sent to the President. President Biden vetoed the resolution. The Senate
failed override the veto, thus the veto was sustained. [House Vote 232,
5/23/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/23/23;
Congressional Actions, S.J. Res.
11]
The Resolution Would Overturn EPA Regulations On Smog-Forming
Pollution From Heavy-Duty Vehicles. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "The House on Tuesday passed a joint resolution that
would vacate EPA regulations on smog-forming pollution from
heavy-duty trucks that President Joe Biden has promised to veto."
[Congressional Quarterly,
5/23/23]
The Rule Required Heavy And Medium-Duty Trucks To Meet Stricter
Nitrogen Oxide Emission Standards Starting In 2027, Which Would
Lower Nitrogen Oxide Emissions By Heavy-Duty Trucks By 48% By
2045. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The rule, finalized
in December, requires heavy- and medium-duty vehicles to meet the
more stringent nitrogen oxide emission standards beginning in model
year 2027. The EPA said the update, the first in over two decades,
would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by heavy-duty truck fleet by
48 percent by 2045." [Congressional Quarterly,
5/23/23]
The EPA Projected The Rule Would Lower Childhood Asthma By 18,000
Per Year And Lower Premature Deaths By 2,900. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "NOx are produced from fuel burning and
mixing with other pollutants in the atmosphere. High levels of
exposure have been linked to respiratory ailments, such as asthma.
The EPA also projected that childhood asthma cases would decline by
18,000 per year and premature deaths would decline by 2,900."
[Congressional Quarterly,
5/23/23]
Republicans Argued The Rule Would Increase Costs Of Heavy-Duty
Trucks, Coercing Truckers To Choose Between Expensive Vehicles Or
Their Less-Efficient Model. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Prior to the vote, Republicans who spoke in favor of the joint
resolution and against the rule said the regulations would increase
the costs of heavy-duty trucks, forcing truckers to choose between a
new, more expensive vehicle or keeping their less-efficient model on
the road longer." [Congressional Quarterly,
5/23/23]
Democrats Emphasized The Rule Provided Until 2027 For
Manufacturers To Commercialize Their Technology And Argued That
Nullifying The Rule Would Cost More To Public Health. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "However, Democrats said the lead time
would allow manufacturers to commercialize the technology by 2027
and that there would be larger costs to public health if the
stricter regulations were not kept in place. The Office of
Management and Budget made a similar argument in its statement
promising Biden would veto the joint resolution." [Congressional
Quarterly, 5/23/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule On
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions. In May 2023, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 429)
that would provide for floor consideration of [...] the joint
resolution (S J Res 11) disapproving an EPA rule on heavy-duty vehicle
emissions." The vote was on adoption of the rule. The House adopted the
rule by a vote of 217 to 204. [House Vote 231,
5/23/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/23/23;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
429;
Congressional Actions, S.J. Res.
11]
2023: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule On
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions. In May 2023, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the "motion to order the previous
question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule
(H Res 429) that would provide for floor consideration of [...] the
joint resolution (S J Res 11) disapproving an EPA rule on heavy-duty
vehicle emissions." The vote was on a motion to order the previous
question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 219 to 208.
[House Vote 230,
5/23/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/23/23;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
429;
Congressional Actions, S.J. Res.
11]