2024: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing The Salary Of Michael Regan, The Administrator Of The Environmental Protection Agency, To $1. In July 2024, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against Reducing The Salary Of Ya-Wei (Jake) Li, The Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs, To $1. In July 2024, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Environmental Protection Agency From Taking "Backstop Actions" On Limits On Chesapeake Bay Pollutants. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , 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]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Decrease Funding For The EPA By 17 Percent. In July 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d] all appropriations under the bill for the Environmental Protection Agency by 17 percent." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 239. [House Vote 456, 7/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1346; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Requiring EPA's Rules From Being Delayed Pending All Judicial Reviews. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would remove the bill's requirements that EPA's rules are to be delayed pending to resolution of all judicial reviews. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would "remove the bill's requirements that EPA's rules are to be delayed pending to resolution of all judicial reviews and instead require a state's public utility commission to conduct an analysis of any state or federal plan." The underlying measure was the Ratepayer Protection Act, which according to Congressional Quarterly, "would postpone the dates by when states and existing fossil-fuel power plants must comply with current or future EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions until all judicial challenges are completed, and it allows state governors to opt out of developing an emissions reduction plan or complying with a federal plan for existing plants if he or she determines that the requirement would have an adverse effect on electricity ratepayers." The vote was on the amendment. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 177 to 250. [House Vote 383, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 529; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2042]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Disapproving A September 2020 Environmental Protection Agency Rule That Rescinded Methane Emissions Standards. In June 2021, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations To Reenact Emergency Affirmative Defense Positions For Stationary Sources Of Air Pollution. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Environmental Protection Agency From Implementing Rules Regarding Air Pollution Emissions. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against concurring 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted For 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, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2021 Four-Bill Appropriations Package That Would Decrease Funding To The EPA By $564 Million. In July 2020, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations Defunding The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In June 2019, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing Another Government Shutdown And Providing $8.8 Billion For The EPA. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted For Closing EPA Regional Offices. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted To Cut EPA Funding By $10.2 Million. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing EPA Funding By $1 Million. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against 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]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Providing Five Percent Less Than Requested For The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Budget As Part Of The FY 2016 Omnibus. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against a zero percent increase in EPA funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure provides $8.1 billion in net appropriations for general EPA programs and management, equal to FY 2015 funding but $452 million (5%) less than requested. This amount includes $40 million in rescissions. According to the committee, the agency's staffing levels under the agreement will be lower than at any point since 1989." 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]
Legislation Prohibits The EPA From Using Funds To Issue Regulations On Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting From Livestock. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure prohibits EPA from using funds to issue regulations or require clean air permits for greenhouse gas emissions resulting from livestock, or to issue a rule requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems, and it bars the EPA from imposing reporting requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions. It requires the administration to provide with its FY 2017 budget request a comprehensive report to Congress describing all federal agency funding for climate change programs, projects and activities in FYs 2015 and 2016. It also prohibits EPA from using funds to regulate lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (PL 94-469)." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15]
The Legislation Does Not Prohibit The EPA From Implementing The Waters Of The United States Rule. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Unlike the House-passed version of the measure, the agreement does not prohibit EPA from implementing its 'Waters of the United States' rule-making to clarify what bodies of water are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act or prohibit EPA from implementing rules to reduce carbon emissions from new and existing power plants." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Increased Funding For EPA Environmental Programs And Management By Almost $2 Million And Offset That Cost By Taking The Same Amount From Department Of The Interior Operations Funding. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would increase funding for EPA Environmental Programs and Management by almost $2 million, offset by an equal reduction to Interior Department operations. According to Congressional Quarterly the amendment would have, "increase[d] funding for EPA Environmental Programs and Management by $2 million, offset by an equal reduction to Interior Department operations." The underlying measure was the FY 2015 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The vote was on the amendment. The House of Representatives rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 239. [House Vote 396, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 550; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL): Amendment Restored Brownfields Funding; Redeveloping Contaminated Properties Generated Large Returns On Investment In The Communities. In a floor speech, Rep. Castor said, "I rise today to offer an amendment to restore brownfields funding to fiscal year 2015 levels and to make the point that when we help redevelop contaminated properties, we generate a large return on investments that lift our communities back home. [...] Mr. Chairman, when a contaminated property achieves a brownfields designation and a grant, local communities and businesses can clean up the property and put the property back into use. This type of economic redevelopment is key to our neighborhoods and communities, rural or urban. It increases property values and creates jobs with just a little bit of seed money from the EPA through brownfields. " [Congressional Record, 7/8/15]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): Funding Offset Would Fund EPA Salaries, Not For Brownfield Site Cleanups. In a floor speech, Rep. Calvert said, "The offset obviously would take money from the Secretary and move it over to the EPA, and at this time we have used the Secretary's Office tremendously as an offset already, and I am afraid that this may start affecting other programs within the Department of the Interior. So I would have to oppose this amendment. The gentlewoman's amendment won't increase the cleanup of a brownfields site, it will only pay for salaries over at the EPA, and I believe that we don't need to do any more for the EPA than has already been done. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time." [Congressional Record, 7/8/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Suggest That Funding For The Environmental Protection Agency Should Be "Reduced Significant" As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for suggesting that EPA funding should be reduced. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Beginning in FY 2016, funding for the EPA should be significantly reduced, saving the taxpayers billions of dollars per year and giving much-needed regulatory certainty to job creators." 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]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The EPA From Finalizing New Energy-Related Regulations If The Measures Cost More Than $1 Billion If The Energy Department Determines The Rules Would Hurt The Economy 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, "prohibit[ed] [the] EPA from finalizing energy-related regulations estimated to cost more than $1 billion if the Energy Department determines that the regulations will cause significant adverse effects to the economy." 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 Would Require The Energy Department To Review Proposed Rules For Effects On Consumer Energy Prices, Fuel Diversity, Electricity Reliability, And Other Effects On Energy Supply. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure would require the Energy Department to review proposed EPA rules for effects on consumer energy prices, fuel diversity, electricity reliability and other effects on energy supply, distribution or use. If an increase or adverse effect is thought to occur, the department would consult with the Commerce and Labor Departments and the Small Business Administration to determine if the regulation would significantly harm the economy, and then publish the results." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13]
The Bill Would Have Barred EPA Regulatory Analyses From Including Any Cost From Carbon Emissions. According to SNL Generation Markets Week, "'The consumer relief act included an amendment from Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., that would bar the EPA from assigning a cost to carbon emissions in regulatory analyses 'unless and until a federal law is enacted authorizing such use.' This 'social cost of carbon' is used 'to justify regulations that will only result in more job loss and higher electric bills,' he said in a statement." [SNL Generation Markets Week, 8/13/13]
Bill's Opponents Said It Was A "Disguised Assault On EPA Rules That Protect Human Health And The Environment." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Henry A. Waxman of California said the legislation would cripple the EPA by giving the Energy Department 'veto power' over the agency and called it a 'disguised assault on EPA rules that protect human health and the environment.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The EPA From Finalizing New Energy-Related Regulations If The Measures Cost More Than $1 Billion And The Energy Department Determines The Rules Would Hurt The Economy. In August 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the EPA from finalizing energy-related regulations estimated to cost more than $1 billion if the Energy Department determine[d] that the rule would cause significant adverse effects to the economy. If the EPA determine[d] that a proposed regulation would cost more than $1 billion, it would have [had] to submit a report to Congress and the Energy Department. As amended, the bill would [have] require[d] the EPA to make publicly available all data and documents relied upon by the agency to develop estimates of a rule's benefits." The House passed the bill by a vote of 232 to 181, however, the Senate took no substantive action. [House Vote 432, 8/1/13; Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1582]
The Bill Would Require The Energy Department To Review Proposed Rules For Effects On Consumer Energy Prices, Fuel Diversity, Electricity Reliability, And Other Effects On Energy Supply. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure would require the Energy Department to review proposed EPA rules for effects on consumer energy prices, fuel diversity, electricity reliability and other effects on energy supply, distribution or use. If an increase or adverse effect is thought to occur, the department would consult with the Commerce and Labor Departments and the Small Business Administration to determine if the regulation would significantly harm the economy, and then publish the results." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13]
Bill Was Part Of House Republicans' Campaign Against The Federal Regulations That They Blamed For The Slow Economy. According to SNL Generation Markets Week, "The regulation-blocking bills and attached emissions-related amendments are aimed at reinforcing House Republicans' broad public campaign against federal rules - particularly on the energy industry - that they blame for the sluggish economic recovery. But neither the Energy Consumers Relief Act, H.R. 1582, nor Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS Act, H.R. 367, has much chance of becoming law. The Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the measures. And even if they were to pass the upper chamber, the White House has threatened to veto both bills." [SNL Generation Markets Week, 8/13/13]
The Bill Would Have Barred EPA Regulatory Analyses From Including Any Cost From Carbon Emissions. According to SNL Generation Markets Week, "'The consumer relief act included an amendment from Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., that would bar the EPA from assigning a cost to carbon emissions in regulatory analyses 'unless and until a federal law is enacted authorizing such use.' This 'social cost of carbon' is used 'to justify regulations that will only result in more job loss and higher electric bills,' he said in a statement." [SNL Generation Markets Week, 8/13/13]
Republicans And Some Democrats Had Criticized How The Obama Administration Calculated The Cost Of Carbon Emissions. According to SNL Generation Markets Week, "In proposing the amendment, Murphy criticized the secretive way in which the cost is calculated - a concern shared by some Democrats as well. Some Republicans have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate how the administration decided to revise the range of values for a metric ton of carbon dioxide to between $11 and $102, up from $5.30 to $69.60 in 2010." [SNL Generation Markets Week, 8/13/13]
Bill's Supporters Said EPA's Recent Mercury, Fuel Standards, And Industrial Boiler Rules, Among Others, Had Hindered Economic Growth. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Citing EPA rules on mercury, fuel standards and industrial boilers, Kentucky Republican Edward Whitfield said, 'The cost of some of these regulations present serious obstacles to economic growth.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13]
Bill's Opponents Said It Was A "Disguised Assault On EPA Rules That Protect Human Health And The Environment." According to Congressional Quarterly, "Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Henry A. Waxman of California said the legislation would cripple the EPA by giving the Energy Department 'veto power' over the agency and called it a 'disguised assault on EPA rules that protect human health and the environment.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/1/13]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Strengthening EPA Regulation Of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). In January 2020, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted For Blocking PFAS From Being Designated As Hazardous Substances. In January 2020, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against Designating Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances As Hazardous Substances, Therefore Prohibiting The Use Of These Chemicals In The Military. In July 2019, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Exempting Proposed Limitations On EPA Research To Actions Covered In Response To an Emergency That Could Harm The Health And Safety Of A Community. In November 2014, Schweikert voted against exempting proposed limitations on EPA research to actions covered in response to an emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to recommit would have "allow[ed] the EPA to use all peer-reviewed scientific publications." The underlying legislation was the Secret Science Reform Act which would have "prohibit the EPA from proposing, finalizing or disseminating a rule or other regulatory impact analysis or guidance unless all scientific and technical information used to support the research results is made publicly available and can be independently analyzed and reproduced. It also would clarify that environmental research law does not require the disclosure of information that is prohibited by law." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by vote of 196 to 230. [House Vote 527, 11/19/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/14]
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX): Bill Without This Amendment Would Have Slowed Down Ebola Response. In a floor speech, Rep. Johnson said, "As written, the bill would prevent EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information. I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters. [...] I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well-publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were not initially identified as Ebola. After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola. [...] Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on its Web site. However, under this bill, the EPA could be prevented from disseminating this type of information because EPA registered disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information or confidential business information." [Congressional Record, 11/19/14]
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ): EPA Does Not Just Use Secret Information When Responding To An Emergency. In a floor speech, Rep. Schweikert said, "On this particular occasion, on this motion to recommit, this MTR, it does win a point on creativity. But if we actually just heard part of it, you are telling me that the EPA, when they respond to a spill, they are showing up embracing secret information on how they are responding. It is absurd." [Congressional Record, 11/19/14]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Prohibiting The EPA From Making Rules Unless The Rule Is Based On Research That Is Entirely Publically Available. In March 2017, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The EPA From Making Rules Unless The Rule Is Based On Research That Is Entirely Publically Available. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for 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 "would [have] prohibit[ed] the EPA from proposing, finalizing or disseminating a rule or other covered action unless all scientific and technical information used to decide upon the rule is made available to the public so the research can be independently analyzed and reproduced." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 241 to 175. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 125, 3/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/18/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1030]
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. In addition, the information used in taking action on a rule must be considered the 'best available science.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Legislation Would Impose Arbitrary [...] Requirements That Would Seriously Impede The [...] [EPA's] Ability To Use Science To Protect Public Health And The Environment. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "The bill would impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public health and the environment, as required under an array of environmental laws, while increasing uncertainty for businesses and States. [...] Provisions of the bill could be interpreted to prevent EPA from taking important, and possibly legally required, actions, where supporting data is not publicly available, and legal challenges could delay important environmental and health protections. For example, the data underlying some scientifically-important studies is not made broadly available in order to protect the privacy of test subjects, and modeling that EPA uses for a variety of purposes are not EPA property and therefore cannot be publicly released. [...] If the President were presented with H.R. 1030, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 3/4/15]
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 that 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, 3/13/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Use Of Studies With Confidential Health Information In EPA Rulemaking. In November 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to the League of Conservation Voters, "would cripple the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best available science in setting critical public health safeguards. H.R. 4012 would severely restrict the scope of scientific studies that the EPA is able to use when setting health standards by prohibiting the use of peer-reviewed studies with confidential health information." The House passed the bill by a vote of 237 to 190; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which has not taken any substantive action on it. [House Vote 528, 11/19/14; League of Conservation Voters, Accessed 19/25/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4012]
In Making Air Quality Standards, EPA Had Relied On Nonpublic Studies That It Had Not Conducted Itself; Releasing Data Would Violate Confidentiality Pledges. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But when reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA relied on thousands of scientific studies. In total, CBO estimates that EPA relies on about 50,000 scientific studies each year to perform its mission. When developing the NAAQS standards, which were released in 2012, EPA relied partially on nonpublic scientific data that was made available only to the agency. For such nonpublic studies, including those on other EPA rules determinations, the agency has said it cannot release some of the data because the agency did not conduct the study and gather the data itself, and that releasing the data would breach confidentiality pledges. However, EPA maintains that the studies did undergo rigorous scientific review." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/15]
EPA Administrator Had Pledged To Release Information During Confirmation Hearings, But Confidentiality And Privacy Laws Prevented Release. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure goes after reams of data used in decades-old health studies that EPA uses to justify costs of air quality regulations. In a deal with Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that cleared the way for her confirmation in 2013, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy pledged to gather and release the information. But she later told lawmakers that confidentiality and privacy laws were hampering the agency's efforts. She also called it unnecessary for the agency to independently confirm all of the research that it uses to justify rules." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/29/14]
Bill Would Increase Cost Of Each Study By $10,000 To $30,000, Would Cost At Least Several Hundred Million Per Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the costs of the bill are very uncertain because it is not clear how EPA would meet the bill's requirements. Depending on their size and scope, CBO says the new activities called for by the bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 for each scientific study used by the agency. If EPA continued to rely on as many scientific studies as it has used in recent years, while increasing the collection and dissemination of all the technical information used in such studies as directed by the measure, then implementing the bill would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year." [Congressional Quarterly, 11/14/15]
Supporters Claimed That EPA Was Making Rules Backed By Unverifiable Claims And That Bill Would Bring Transparency To Process. According to Congressional Quarterly, "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 the 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 that 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, 11/14/15]
Opponents Argued That Bill Would Block EPA From Using Valid Studies, And That Data Went Through Rigorous Peer Review Process. 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 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 scientific research to make its decisions. While some nonpublic research is used, EPA mostly relies 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, 11/14/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Would Modify The Selection And Qualification Process For The EPA's Science Advisory Board. In March 2017, Schweikert voted for 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]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Would Modify The Selection And Qualification Process For The EPA's Science Advisory Board. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would modify the qualifications and selection process for the EPA's Science Advisory Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, "modify the qualifications and selection process for individuals to serve on EPA's Science Advisory Board. The bill would require that there is a balance of scientific views on the board and it would expand the disclosure requirements for members of the board. It also requires the board and its subcommittees to publicly release scientific information used in determining its advisories to 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 121, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/2/15; 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, mainly 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, 3/17/15]
Opponents Of The Bill Claimed It Would "Diminish The Sound Science And Good Judgement" That The EPA Relied On. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Bill opponents, mainly 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, 3/17/15]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting CEOs Or Individuals Whose Primary Source Of Research Funds Are Associated With Corporations Convicted Of Major Environmental Crimes From Serving On The EPA Science Advisory Board. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against banning CEOs of corporations convicted of major environmental crimes from serving on the EPA Advisory Board. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote would have "prohibit[ed] board members who are CEOs or individuals whose primary source of research funds are associated with corporations convicted of major environmental crimes." The underlying bill would, according to Congressional Quarterly "modify the qualifications and selection process for individuals to serve on EPA's Science Advisory Board. The bill would require that there is a balance of scientific views on the board and it would expand the disclosure requirements for members of the board. It also requires the board and its subcommittees to publicly release scientific information used in determining its advisories to EPA." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 179 to 237. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 120, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/15; House Vote 121, 3/17/15; 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]
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA): "CEOs From Major Corporations That Are Convicted Of Major Environmental Crimes Have No Place Serving On The Science Advisory Board And Neither Do Biased Scientists." According to a floor speech by Rep. Peters, "Mr. Speaker, let's make this simple. The fundamental role of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect our Nation's environment and to ensure that we have healthy communities for children and families across the country. The Science Advisory Board is the body that ensures that EPA uses the best scientific research available to protect the environment and public health. To support this mission, we in Congress should be working together to ensure that the best and brightest scientists are on this Board. Instead, today's bill would muddy the waters when they should be crystal clear. [...]It should be clear to everyone that CEOs from major corporations that are convicted of major environmental crimes have no place serving on the Science Advisory Board and neither should biased scientists." [Congressional Record, 3/17/15]
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK): Motion To Recommit Was Crafty, But Since The EPA Director Appoints The Science Advisory Board Members And Disclosure Requirements Have Been Increased, Motion Was Unnecessary. According to a floor speech by Rep. Lucas, "Now, to the motion to recommit, in particular, it is pretty good, pretty impressive, pretty crafty, but remember, the director of the EPA appoints the Board members. Surely, the director, especially with the additional disclosure requirements in the bill, will show the kind of judgment and prudence that is necessary--surely, surely. That said, my friends, this is a work in progress, but it is an effort to turn around a problem that is greater than just one science board, one agency. It is an effort to address a problem that faces the entire Federal Government." [Congressional Record, 3/17/15]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Barring People From Serving On The EPA's Science Advisory Board If They Represent A Corporation With A Financial Interests In A Board Decision's Outcome. November 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against barring people from serving on the EPA's Science Advisory Board if they represent a corporation with a financial interests in a board decision's outcome. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion to recommit would have "bar[red] people from serving on the Science Advisory Board if they represent a corporation or a trade association with a financial interest in the outcome of the board's decisions." The underlying bill was the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 195 to 225. [House Vote 524, 11/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/14]
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]
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY): Underlying Bill Fails To Effectively Prevent Persons With "Key Financial Conflicts From Serving" On The Science Advisory Board. In a floor speech, Rep. Maloney said, "Science is not political. We shouldn't fear science, and we shouldn't politicize science. We should not monetize science, and we should not make it political today. We should ban these conflicts and trust in our scientists. [...] This bill now requires a new disclosure requirement for SAB members, but there is a glaring omission. It fails to effectively prevent persons with key financial conflicts from serving. That is why I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment. We must not allow corporations to influence this process by sending corporation-funded scientists onto the board. We must not allow corporation-funded scientists to drown out genuine scientific debate." [Congressional Record, 11/18/14]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule That Imposed Stricter Emissions Standards On Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule On Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove An EPA Rule On Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 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]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing The EPA To Use All Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications. In November 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would allow the EPA to use all the peer-reviewed scientific publications. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "allow[ed] the EPA to use all peer-reviewed scientific publications." The underlying legislation was the Secret Science Reform Act which would have "prohibit the EPA from proposing, finalizing or disseminating a rule or other regulatory impact analysis or guidance unless all scientific and technical information used to support the research results is made publicly available and can be independently analyzed and reproduced. It also would clarify that environmental research law does not require the disclosure of information that is prohibited by law." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by vote of 194 to 230. [House Vote 526, 11/19/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/14; Congressional Quarterly, 11/19/14]
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy (D-MA): Underlying Bill Leaves The EPA With Unworkable Standards. In a floor speech, Rep. Kennedy said, "the bill we are considering today takes science off the table for the EPA, the very Agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our water safe, and our homes clear from toxic substances. The bill before us leaves the EPA with unworkable standards, prohibiting it from using certain studies simply because they contain information that, by law, cannot be made public. My amendment would fix this oversight." [Congressional Record, 11/19/14]
Boston Teaching Hospitals Via The Congressional Record: Research Based On Personal Health Information Would Be Banned From EPA Use Without The Amendment. According to a letter from the Boston Teaching Hospitals via the Congressional Record, "On behalf of the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, I would like to thank you for your introduction of the amendment to H.R. 4012 and offer our full support for the amendment. [...] Research conducted at our hospitals, while not originally undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is sometimes relied upon by the EPA and other federal agencies to develop scientifically based policies. Much of this research uses personal health data which is protected by both federal law and our institutional review board guidelines. Under the proposed law, this valuable research would not be able to be used when developing EPA policies. By allowing the EPA to consider peer-reviewed scientific publications in its work, this amendment would ensure that the best available science is the foundation of the EPA's important work." [Congressional Record, 11/19/14]
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ): Amendment Would Allow Significant Regulations Based On Peer-Reviewed, And Not "Highest And Best." In a floor speech, Rep. Schweikert said, "Let's walk through the sentence. ''Any peer-reviewed.'' It doesn't say ''highest and best.'' Okay. Let's walk through the next portion of this. Peer review, if you actually look at the methodology and the mechanics, is the study plausible, credible? They don't get the underlying data set. [...] The fact of the matter is if any of you have Web access right now, there is Web site after Web site after Web site right now talking about the retraction of peer-reviewed articles. You are willing to hand hundreds of billions of dollars of potential costs and regulations [...] This amendment does not say the finest and the best and the most highest standard of review. It says, 'any peer-reviewed.'" [Congressional Record, 11/19/14]