Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 long years since I was a conferee on Dodd-Frank. Since then, I have seen credit markets in my district and across the country dry up, thanks to the increased regulations. That is why I am so happy to be speaking on a bill today that will roll back some of those burdens. As I have said over the last decade, Dodd-Frank was not written on the back of the stone tablets. Dodd-Frank will be addressed in this bill, S. 2155. S. 2155 is but the first step in making that perception a reality. It is the first step in bringing financial markets back to true efficiency and capacity. And, yes, I mean a first step. There are many more things this Congress could and should do to bring more relief to small community institutions across the country. Every year, small financial institutions in Oklahoma have made the trek here to ask me for relief, any relief. For the first time, I can give them positive news, which is, thanks to this bill, sure, there is more to be done, of course, but things in this bill like changes to stress testing, risk management protocols, required data disclosure, among other things, will help those who rely on small banks and credit unions for their financial needs. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling for this opportunity to vote on this bill today.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington State for the opportunity to yield to me to discuss this important issue. Mr. Chair, this amendment, some in the room might think perhaps will target the Market Access Program, but, in fact, it is the Value Added Producer Grant program. This is a program that supports and helps producers add value to the products that they raise. I would tell you my chief concern at this point in time in the way this amendment has been offered is that about $8 million of the rescissions of this program would come out of current programs that farmers have already applied for. USDA has already scored the applications, it has compiled proposals to make a decision and announcement on grant awards; thus, the amendment wouldn't just adversely affect the small producer-owned wineries, but producers across the board, including those from Oklahoma who have and expect to receive grants. That is not fair. If you played by the rules, if you have gone through the grant process, if you have qualified, suddenly to have $8 million taken out to punish a particular industry means that even though you might not be a part of that industry, you lose your opportunity to add value. Maybe this is an issue that needs to be discussed on a different day in a different way, but I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I have the greatest of respect for my fellow Oklahoman, but on this occasion, let's turn this amendment back.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman have remaining?

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, why do we invest in agriculture? Because the ability to eat, to feed ourselves is one of the most fundamentally important things that goes on in an economy. We make those investments so that we will always have a sufficient supply of the highest quality food and fiber at the most affordable prices. Empires, countries, republics, democracies have been destroyed throughout history when they lost their ability to feed themselves. I will tell you a strong farm bill, the investment we make is one of the key foundations to protecting the Constitution, just like our responsibilities to have a standing army to defend the coast, to defend the airspace, to defend our folks. Maybe you don't want to make that investment, maybe you are willing to take a chance, but when we don't have enough to eat, it will be too late to fix the problem.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe, but almost 5 years ago, Collin, Mike, we were on the floor of this very Chamber when we took up the previous farm bill, a farm bill that was well crafted and well intended. And on that day, if you remember, folks of good principle on both extremes of the perspective together managed to bring the bill down. Now, why do I bring that up? Because I simply want to remind all my colleagues, no farm bill is ever simple. They are all hard. Circumstances change from cycle to cycle, crop to crop, but it is always hard to do a farm bill. So why are we here? Why do we keep going through this process? Because, ultimately, we need to pass a comprehensive piece of legislation that will make sure we have the ability to raise the food and fiber that our neighbors need; that we can sell into the world markets to meet their needs; and, yes, that we provide the ability, through this same piece of legislation, so that our neighbors, who, through tough times, through, most often, circumstances beyond their control, have the ability to access enough of that food to meet their needs. So, yes, we have to have a farm bill. We have to have a farm bill. I would say to all my colleagues, this is a step in the long march to ultimately creating a final document that involves the other body and requires a signature by the Chief Executive of this country. Let's debate and argue and fight out amendments tonight and tomorrow and the next day. Let's avoid what happened 5 years ago by doing things that would try to kill the process. Let's keep the process moving forward. Let's refine. Let's perfect. Let's pass a comprehensive farm bill so the people who feed and clothe us have the ability to do it, so those who need help in receiving the resources they need have the ability to do it. We have no less option: Good faith. Do what you need to do, but let's get it done. There are people depending on us everywhere and around the world today.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here for the second time in as many days to discuss a bill from Mr. Tipton, my friend and our colleague from Colorado. I commend his dedication to find ways to bring more credit options to more Americans. This bill is no exception to that, and I thank him for sponsoring it. This Nation is founded on the idea that those who enforce the law are not those who ultimately judge those laws. This idea of due process is something all Americans respect and we enjoy, but in the case of financial institutions, there has been a noted lack of such process during appeals. If a bank or credit union today is assessed a postinspection penalty that they feel is based on inaccurate or incomplete information, the only recourse is back to the regulator that performed the inspection in the first place. Such an argument turns the concept of proper process upside down. At the very least, I think we would all agree with a number of my colleagues who have noted that the judge, the jury, and the executioner should be separate. There has to be a better way. This bill provides that better way by giving these institutions a new recourse so they can be assured of fair treatment. We all know this could be an expensive and time-consuming process for a bank or credit union, which is all the more reason to provide fair treatment. Smaller banks and credit unions that go through this appeal process are possibly running the risk of losing an appeal that will severely limit their ability to offer credit. For that reason, a newer, fairer process will help all Americans by increasing access to credit. I am not pulling that idea out of thin air. The National Bankers Association, which represents minority bankers, supports the legislation. That should tell us how this bill will benefit every American who relies on the financial services and on credit. Finally, Mr. Tipton's bill does not change the fact that some banks and credit unions will lose their appeals. No one is saying that bad actors should go unpunished. The point of the bill, however, is to make that process as fair as possible. By consolidating the appeals process into one office that is separate from the four main banking regulators, that fairness can be achieved. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill not only supports the concept of due process, but it will also expand credit opportunities for all Americans. I again commend the bill and the author, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Mr. Tipton's bill, the TAILOR Act. But first I would note, as always, in participating in these kind of debates, any time you have a discussion led by Chairman Hensarling and by Ranking Member Waters, it is always an exciting, stimulating debate, and the intensity and the focus is always there. But, today, we are focused on what I think is a very important piece of legislation because too often we think of financial institutions as the big guys, the truly massive entities. The truth is, however, that institutions that accept deposits from Americans come in all shapes and sizes. Thus, it is important that the regulators consider those many shapes and sizes when requiring compliance. The TAILOR Act would require that consideration by regulators. My colleagues have already discussed that this provision has passed the House and is supported by the administration, as well as several industry groups. But I will note that for anyone in this body who represents a rural area, I guarantee banks and credit unions in your district are devoting a large portion of their budget to compliance. That is money that could easily go toward providing credit to the many Americans who need it. Shouldn't the regulators consider the small institutions when forming these regulations? This bill will free up some ability for those institutions to lend money to typical Americans and local businesses. I know my district would see the benefits of this bill, and I would guess that many districts nationwide would also benefit in the same ways. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) for working so diligently on this bill and bringing it through the committee process, bringing it to the floor today, and giving us the opportunity to vote for it. I urge that vote. I advocate support.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Mr. Emmer's bill, H.R. 2954. Dodd-Frank added unprecedented new regulations on industry. As has been said already by my colleagues, institutions now have to collect 25 additional fields of data. This is more than double what the banks and credit unions and other lenders had to report prior to passage of Dodd- Frank. Not only do these added requirements increase costs for all financial institutions, but it has taken lots of time for smaller community lenders to prepare for them. This House should be well aware of two surveys of small financial institutions that reported an alarming inability of those entities to meet these new requirements. In fact, in my meetings with small banks and credit unions from Oklahoma, all of them have raised these specific rules and requirements as being costly enough to affect their business decisions: such as how many mortgages they could feasibly originate. All of this makes this bill not only timely, but immensely necessary. I represent a district that is full of institutions that originate fewer than 500 closed-end mortgages or open-end lines of credit in 2 years. While these new requirements were certainly well-intentioned, their impact on small institutions cannot be overstated and should not be lessened. We as a body should continue to find ways to grow the ability of Americans to receive and to utilize financial instruments, such as mortgages. These requirements, if put on all institutions nationwide, will disproportionately affect those who are served by small financial entities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Emmer's bill.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote Monday June 26, 2017 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 323, and YEA on Roll Call No. 324.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his continued leadership on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and for bringing forward this important legislation. H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, prioritizes improving weather forecasting for the protection of lives and property at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is a core program of the agency that has been in need of improved direction and investment for years. The bill directs NOAA to develop plans to restore our country's leadership in weather forecasting. It is no secret that many people in our weather community are distraught that our forecasting capacities have deteriorated in recent years. Some even say that America no longer has the best weather prediction system in the world. In fact, we routinely rely on forecasts of other countries to predict what will happen in this country. This is unacceptable, but I am glad we are here today to pass legislation that will dramatically improve our weather forecasting system. The bill before us today enhances our ability to predict severe weather by focusing research and computing resources on improved weather forecasting, quantitative observing data planning, next generation modeling, and an emphasis on research-to-operations technology transfer. As a Representative from Oklahoma, I understand the need for accurate and timely weather predictions firsthand. Every year, the loss of life from deadly tornadoes in my home State are a stark reminder that we can do better to predict severe weather events and provide longer lead times to protect Americans in harm's way. I am proud that this legislation has a dedicated tornado warning improvement program. The goal of this program is to reduce the loss of life from tornadoes by advancing the understanding of fundamental meteorological science. This will allow detection and notifications of severe weather that are more accurate, effective, and timely. Constituents in my home State will benefit greatly from longer tornado warning lead times, which will save lives and better protect property. Being better prepared for severe weather events is of the utmost important. The bill will improve our forecasting by encouraging innovations and new technologies through a joint technology transfer fund at NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. This transfer is essential to get new forecasting, models, and technologies out of the research side of NOAA and into the operational forecasts to better protect our country. Furthermore, the legislation will enhance our forecasting by directing NOAA to engage new commercial data and private sector solutions. This legislation includes a pilot project, which will provide NOAA a clear demonstration of the valuable data from commercial technologies. The private sector has the potential to aid our forecasting skill while reducing government cost with innovative solutions. In order to increase our weather skills, we must not limit ourselves by solely relying on government data. This legislation packs in multiple efforts to protect lives and property from severe weather. From encouraging new technologies both inside and outside of NOAA to the careful planning and prioritization of weather research, this legislation will put our country back on track to be a world leader in weather prediction. The time has come for Americans to have the most accurate and timely weather predictions. They deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on the committee for many years.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank my good friend, Representative Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me. I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on or who happens to be the President. H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the EPA and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed. If the administration undermines the Board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to Congress, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted. Despite the existing requirement that the EPA's advisory panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. These include a number of advisory members who received money from the EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an objective viewpoint, and should be publicly disclosed. Public participation is limited during most board meetings. Interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work, and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain. This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the National Academy of Sciences, and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group. H.R. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no matter who is the chief executive officer of our government. Perhaps most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Ask your constituents back home if they know that. The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored in a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. Instead, in the past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and contributions of those experts. This bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. This will add value and credibility to future Board reviews. Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role science should play in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory Board as a defender of scientific integrity. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so- called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside out. On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill. But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country, on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world. That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country or of society as a whole. That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have access and some certainty about the people and the process that are driving everything in our world. Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency, incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may have--drive us all into despair and destruction. With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and pass the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LUCAS. I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of letters which I referred to earlier. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC, March 8, 2017. Hon. Lamar Smith, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the public access to the science that underpins regulations developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants. It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies on science that lacks transparency and reliability to buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity by limiting public participation, excluding state and private sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that have been appointed to review proposed regulations have received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of interest. The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations without being transparent, fair and open to public input when considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to address these shortcomings so that future rules can be transparent and honest. For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and integrity to the regulatory process. Thank you for giving consideration to our views. Sincerely, James W. Tobin III, Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government Affairs and Communications Group.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis. Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every 8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here. I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years, I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that sincerely. There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong with this. But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of doing things. Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long term, represent the best interests of this great country. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents first. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the American Chemistry Council, a letter of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a letter of support from the CO2 Coalition, and a letter of support from the Cato Institute. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, March 29, 2017. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily upon to support new regulatory actions. The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations, standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound, unbiased, and reliable. The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and transparent in performing its duties. The bill would establish requirements that SAB members are qualified experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting members--are available to the public, and that the public has the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards, guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased. The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical reviews and information that agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory actions that can significantly affect society. The American public must have confidence that the scientific and technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly, the Chamber supports these important bills. Sincerely, Neil L. Bradley, Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer, Government Affairs.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short- term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body? I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I understand that, but nothing is ever static. We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all the appointments and the actions of the EPA. I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to be created. Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best long-term interest of the Nation as a whole. I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with that? And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and expertise to participate, too, if they have a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible fashion. I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest. I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before, that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused debate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time simply to note to my colleagues the goal of this amendment is to allow business entities to efficiently manage their risk. If that risk is managed internally where it is no threat to third parties then they should have the ability to do it in the most efficient fashion. As I noted in my earlier comments, CFTC has provided similar relief through rule exceptions and no-action letters. What we are trying to do here is clarify this situation. As far as one of the previous chairmen of the CFTC, while a very enthusiastic regulator, I would note that I and many participants down through the years have disagreed with his interpretations on several things. But, with that, I have the greatest respect for my colleague over there. This is a sincere difference of opinion. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) who is the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.