2020: Schweikert Voted Against Maintaining Strict Air Standards For Soot. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 four-bill appropriations package that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill to enforce an April 30, 2020, EPA rule related to air quality standards for particulate matter." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 233-176. [House Vote 163, 7/24/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/20; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.854; Congressional Actions, H.R.7608]
The Amendment Reverses An EPA Rule Implemented In April That Rolled Back Regulations On Soot. According to Roll Call, the amendment "would cut off funding for the EPA to finish and implement a regulation it proposed in April, when it decided not to require more stringent air standards for fine particulate matter, sometimes referred to as soot. Democrats argued that not implementing stricter soot standards is a disservice to Americans and would disproportionally affect communities of color." [Roll Call, 7/24/20]
Republicans Backed The EPA Rule, Stating It Used "Solid Science," And Claimed The Requirements Are Already Burdensome To Some States. According to Roll Call, "GOP lawmakers argued the EPA's review of the current standard uses solid science and its process of reviewing more than 66,000 public comments on the proposed rule should be allowed to continue unimpeded by Congress. 'There are already too many states and counties struggling to meet the current standards,' said Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio, the ranking member on the Interior-Environment Subcommittee." [Roll Call, 7/24/20]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Require The EPA To Modify Several Aspects Of The Clean Air Act Pre-Construction Permit Program In A Veiled Attempt To Weaken Nation's Air Quality Protections. In November 2014, Schweikert voted for a veiled attempt to weaken the nation's air quality protections by requiring the EPA to modify several aspects of its Clean Air Act Pre-Constriction Permits Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "this bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make several modifications to its Clean Air Act preconstruction permit program that are intended to increase transparency and reduce delays in the issuance of those permits." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "Opponents, mainly Democrats, say the bill is a veiled attempt to weaken the nation's air quality protections, allow more pollution and threaten public health." The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 172. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 531, 11/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4795]
The Clean Air Act Requires Major New Or Expanding Air Pollution Sources To Obtain Pre-Construction Permits Limiting Pollution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Clean Air Act (PL 88-206) requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before construction starts. These preconstruction permits ensure that a new or expanded facility will not increase local air pollution to levels that violate national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets for six principal air pollutants. When EPA updates each air quality standard, permit applicants have to meet the new, more restrictive standard and show that their emissions will not harm public health." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
Bill Would Create A Loophole For New Facilities, Exempting Them From Newer, More Stringent Regulations. "Opponents, mainly Democrats, say the bill is a veiled attempt to weaken the nation's air quality protections, allow more pollution and threaten public health. In effect, the bill could give new sources of pollution a free ride from new science-based air quality standards, they say. EPA has noted that requiring the agency to implement 'concurrent' guidance on new air quality standards could create a 'loophole' or 'amnesty' for new facilities by exempting them from newer, more stringent standards. With lower emissions standards in place, the economywide cost of cleaning up pollution would increase, and existing industrial facilities in certain areas may be forced to do more to reduce their emissions if they're near one of these new facilities. Opponents also argue that the bill's requirements will create more regulatory uncertainty, not less, and will set up new avenues for litigation that will delay preconstruction permitting for manufacturing facilities instead of expediting them." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
Permits Supposed To Be Issued One Year After Application; Between 2008-12, EPA Met This Target 40 -- 80 Percent Of The Time Depending On The Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "By statute, a decision on a PSD permit application is supposed to be made within one year of when a completed application is filed. However, EPA has estimated that during the 2008-12 period, the percentage of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a completed permit application ranged from 46-80% depending upon the year. There is no similar deadline for permit applications in nonattainment areas." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
Provision Would Require EPA To Publicly Post Permit Application And Issued Numbers And Requires The EPA To Submit An Annual Report To Congress Which In Part Identifies Actions The EPA Is Taking To Expedite The Permitting Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, " The bill requires EPA to create an online database of information about preconstruction permits that includes data on permits since fiscal 2008, and which would be updated annually. [...] The bill requires EPA to submit an annual report to Congress on actions being taken to expedite the process for issuing preconstruction permits. [...] The report when submitted must identify the activities being undertaken by EPA to increase the efficiency of the preconstruction permitting process; identify the specific reasons for delays in issuing preconstruction permits and how the agency will resolve these delays; and summarize and respond to the public comments received on the draft report." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
Requires The EPA To Publish Guidance To Help States, Permitting Authorities And Applicants To Help With New Regulations At The Same Time New Regulations Are Written; If EPA Fails To Do This, The New Regulations Are Not Applicable. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires EPA, whenever it issues new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), to concurrently publish regulations and guidance that are designed to help states, permitting authorities and permit applicants in the implementation of those new standards. Such guidance must include information relating to the submission and consideration of preconstruction permit applications under the new or revised standard. Under the measure, if EPA fails to issue such guidance at the same time, the new standards would not apply to new or existing preconstruction applications until the final guidance is issued --- meaning the application until that time would only have to meet the prior air quality standards." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
Proponents Say Measure Will Increases Transparency In The Pre-Construction Permitting Process And Expedite The Process, Thus Creating Jobs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters, mainly Republicans, argue that the bill is necessary to provide much-needed transparency, eliminate uncertainty and improve EPA's preconstruction permitting process. As it currently stands, the agency does not provide information on the status of these permits and doing so will help inform the public on EPA's progress in reviewing permit applications, especially given that EPA often misses its statutory deadline. The concurrent guidance that the bill requires of EPA, they say, will allow states and local authorities to best implement new EPA air quality rules and speed up the construction of new manufacturing facilities while ensuring that EPA is accountable when it issues new air quality standards and that regulated entities have the guidance they need to comply with the new standards. Improving and expediting the preconstruction permitting process as the bill will do, they say, will help promote a growing U.S. manufacturing industry and create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
2025: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule That Established Emissions Standards For Rubber Processing In Tire Manufacturing. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of, and nullify, an EPA final rule which established National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for rubber processing in tire manufacturing. The joint resolution would nullify the regulation, but disapproval of the rule would leave in place existing emissions standards for the other three phases of manufacturing rubber tires." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 202. [House Vote 58, 3/5/25; Congressional Quarterly, 3/5/25; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 61]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Repeal The Law That Mandates State Governors To Deter Or Eliminate Air Pollutants That Endanger Public Health Or Welfare. In March 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would "repeal current law that requires state governors to prevent or eliminate air pollutants emitted in their states that the EPA determines endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country, if certain conditions are met." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 96 to 336. [House Vote 173, 3/29/23; Congressional Quarterly, 3/29/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 144]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment Prohibiting Prior Air Quality Standards From Applying For A Pre-Construction Permit If Applicable Permitting Agency Determines It Would Increase Air Pollution. In November 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment prohibiting prior air quality standards from applying for a pre-construction permit if applicable permitting agency determines it would increase air pollution. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "prohibit[ed] prior air quality standards from applying toward a pre-construction permit if the applicable federal, state or local permitting agency determines that applying the standard would increase air pollution, slow permitting or increase regulatory uncertainty." The underlying bill was the Promoting New Manufacturing Act which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "promote[d] new manufacturing in the United States by providing for greater transparency and timeliness in obtaining necessary permits." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 225. [House Vote 529, 11/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, H.R. 4795]
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA): Amendment Would Close A Loophole In Underlying Legislation That Would Allow New Facilities To Meet Old Air Quality Standards. In a floor speech, Rep. Waxman said, "subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute more, other facilities in the area will have to invest more to reduce their emissions. That is not fair. That is not good for the economy. This loophole harms public health, burdens existing facilities, and creates regulatory uncertainty." [Congressional Record, 11/20/14]
Rep. Wayne Whitfield (R-KY): Amendment Would Defeat Purpose Of Legislation. In a floor speech, Rep. Whitfield said, "Mr. Chair, this amendment basically would eliminate section 3(b), or make it applicable in a different way of the legislation, which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill." [Congressional Record, 11/20/14]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Waiving Publishing Requirements For EPA Rules If The New Or Revised Rules Would Protect Children And Seniors From Exposure To Dangerous Air Pollutants. In November 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against waiving publishing requirements for EPA rules if the new or revised rules would protect children and seniors from exposure to dangerous air pollutants. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to recommit would have "allow[ed] new or revised ambient air quality standards to be implemented even if the EPA administrator fails to publish guidance relating to submission and consideration of pre-construction permit applications. It would only waive such publishing requirements if the new or revised ambient air quality standard would protect children and seniors from exposure to dangerous air pollutants or if the pre-construction permit application is for a source that is within 5 miles of a school, day care facility, hospital or nursing home." The underlying bill was the Promoting New Manufacturing Act which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "promote[d] new manufacturing in the United States by providing for greater transparency and timeliness in obtaining necessary permits." The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 189 to 223. [House Vote 530, 11/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/20/14; Congressional Quarterly, H.R. 4795]
Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH): Underlying Legislation Would Make It Harder To Advance Lifesaving Rules. In a floor speech, Rep. Kuster said, "Unfortunately, the bill before us today is not a commonsense bipartisan proposal for strengthening manufacturing; instead, it would tie the hands of our public health officials and make it harder to advance lifesaving rules to protect our air and our lungs from pollution. That is why I am offering my motion, which would provide two exemptions from this bill. First, my motion would exempt rules that protect children and seniors from cancer-causing pollution within 5 miles of a school or nursing home, and second, my motion would protect small businesses from any job losses or increased costs resulting from this bill." [Congressional Record, 11/20/14]
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA): EPA Won't Show States Or Industry Groups Ways To Achieve Guidelines. In a floor speech, Rep. Scalise said, "We have had testimony in committee, Mr. Speaker, from companies that have told us that they are right now delayed by years, in some cases, in the permitting process to build new or better plants to create thousands of jobs in America because the EPA will come up with rules and guidelines; yet they won't even show States or industry groups how they can achieve this in the real world." [Congressional Record, 11/20/14]