Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

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

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, just to mention to the gentlelady, I have no additional speakers, and I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his amendment that would complement the provisions in the bill ensuring a public nomination process and seeking greater balance. I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to improve this bipartisan bill and look forward to its support as we move forward. I am proud of our Nation's institutions of higher learning that house some of the greatest minds in the world. Students, professors, and researchers circle the globe to come join our coveted academic community. It is important that the EPA reach out to universities and research institutions to find a balanced and diverse set of experts to serve on the Board. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for his constructive amendment to this bipartisan bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia. I, too, want the best and brightest. That is why the core principle of the bill is on disclosure, make sure we know where the money goes. Mr. McKinley is taking this to the next point in this focus on following the money. I appreciate where he is coming from. I said earlier to my colleague from Oregon that this is a work in progress. We will see, ultimately, what the final version is; but if you believe that the money should be followed, if you believe we should know where the dollars are and if that impacts the science, then, clearly, Mr. McKinley is on the right path. I am voting with him. It is a work in progress.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and former Environment Subcommittee Chairs Harris, Stewart, and Schweikert for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank my friend Representative Peterson for making this bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me. This is a good government bill. It reflects the values we should uphold, regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on. In western Oklahoma, we are no strangers to regulatory overreach from the Environmental Protection Agency. Farmers, ranchers, and small businesses often find themselves the target of burdensome and simply inefficient regulations. These regulations range from something as specific as farm fuel tank requirements to vastly prohibitive restrictions on electric power plants that power our homes. Government intrusion into America's energy and agricultural sectors reverberate into our everyday lives in the form of higher food prices or higher monthly energy bills. Stagnant wages and underemployment have only exacerbated the problem for families trying to make ends meet. The science behind EPA regulations is as important as the money they siphon from our economy. Science and data are invaluable tools in helping us navigate complex policy issues, and when the economic cost of these regulations reaches into tens of millions of dollars, we need to get it right. H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures that 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, to Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of the science that EPA uses for regulations, but in recent years, shortcomings from the process, unfortunately, have arisen. Opportunities for public participation are limited, an imbalance of viewpoints has been allowed to grow, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak independently seemingly has been curtailed. If the EPA 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 EPA's advisory panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' the Science Committee has identified a number of problems that we fear undermine the panel's credibility and work product. These include: A number of advisory members have received money from the EPA. This could create an appearance of a conflict of interest. Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising the Board about. For example, a lead reviewer of the EPA's hydraulic fracturing study published an antifracking article entitled: ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, clearly, this is not an objective point of view 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. The EPA routinely excludes State, local, and tribal experts while stacking the review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the answer it wants. This bill is both proscience and pro-sound science. This bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined in 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. 1029 liberates the Board from EPA--some would say tyranny, but I would prefer to think it empowers the Board to listen to outside expertise. This viewpoint is consistent with the basic ideals of our democracy. Subject areas such as risk and hazardous assessments often involve the examination and evaluation of some of the most complicated scientific and technical information. These assessments are precisely where the Board's expertise is most needed. The decision to review remains in the hands of the Board, and the EPA must respect the independence of the Board's opportunity to review. 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. The public has important expertise that we can't afford to ignore 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 nonexistent; instead, the EPA picks the Board--ignoring the knowledge, expertise, and contributions of these 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 that 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 and will help restore credibility and trust in a Federal agency that has lost much of it. Disagreements on scientific conclusions shouldn't occur on the House floor, and this legislation will help ensure that the best experts are free to undertake an open review of the EPA's regulatory science. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to note that I think we have had a very good discussion today. I think we have raised a lot of relevant points. We have covered a lot of ground and some good amendments. We have worked our way through this process. This is a step in the great legislative effort that ultimately leads to good legislation. Some of my freshman colleagues might not be aware of this, but recently I was involved in a process that took 2\1/2\ years to ultimately come up with a bill. I hope that not every piece of legislation requires 2\1/2\ years to accomplish, but I would say this: regular order, respecting the input of all Members, both sides of the aisle, both ends of the Chamber, ultimately leads to a better legislative product to the benefit of everyone. And I think we are once again embarking on that effort, so I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to another outstanding gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his amendment that would clarify the bill's safeguards against conflicts of interest. I appreciate his attention to detail, continued engagement with this bill, and look forward to his support. H.R. 1029 seeks balance and transparency in the makeup and composition of the Science Advisory Board. Financial conflicts of interest are specifically prohibited, and that would clarify the intent. In addition to language already in the bill preventing conflicted individuals from participating, the bill requires disclosure. Although disclosure itself may not prevent all bias, the consumers of the Science Advisory Board's product--the EPA, and the American people-- will be better informed if they have all the facts. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his constructive amendment to this bipartisan bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have said it numerous times, and I will repeat once again, this is a work in progress. This is a bill that is so important to the future of the country, so important to how we address the scientific issues of our day, that this must proceed forward. In the markup the other day, I think we had something like four amendments. We have had and accepted several amendments today. I would assume that if ultimately our friends in that other body are able to take action, that we will wind up, once again, working on the differences between the two bills. So there are a number of opportunities to refine and improve even this piece of legislation. But that said, the fundamental principles are still there. We need to pass a bill to continue the process on H.R. 1029 that addresses transparency, that opens the process up to the public, that opens the process up to all individuals who have the scientific knowledge, the ability to contribute to this oversight group. That is why I prefer the disclosure route. Let us all know who makes what off of what, and then we will base their objectivity on that. Again, the Science Advisory Board looks over the shoulder of the EPA. They can't stop the EPA from doing anything. But the power of their analysis, which is only as good as the information that EPA shares with them, their ability to review that will determine just how much support there will be across the country, whatever the ultimate rule is. I know my colleague from Oregon works in good faith, and I respect that greatly. And just as she and her staff have worked with the committee and the committee staff, I suspect we will continue to work together. Ultimately, can we come up with a document that we can all agree with? I am a person of great optimism, and I think we should try. But on this day, an amendment that basically, from my perspective, takes away virtually all of the key points that the bill attempts to achieve, on this day, at this moment, I cannot support that, and I have to, respectfully, ask my colleagues to turn down this amendment, to hopefully then advance the bill so that we can ultimately get to that final document. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Chairman, we have listened to several points of view on different perspectives today. I think the majority floor leader and the chairman of the committee and a number of my colleagues did an outstanding job of explaining why this bill is necessary, why it is appropriate. I will acknowledge to my colleague from Oregon that this is a work in progress, that clearly there are still things that need to be examined, addressed, looked at, and perfected over the course of the legislative session before, ultimately, this is signed into law. But the underlying principles, an entity like the Environmental Protection Agency, which has such tremendous influence and control over our everyday lives--whether you are a farmer, rancher, business person, just a citizen, such tremendous control through their authority and their rulemaking process over our lives--it is important, and it is the very reason that Congress established the Scientific Advisory Board in 1978, it is important to have a knowledgeable group look over their shoulder to verify their facts, to understand the process they are going through in order that, ultimately, that rulemaking process is something that is based on sound science and is something that is appropriate. Now, in the bill we simply say that, in effect, anyone with knowledge and expertise should be able to participate. We ask for full disclosure. If you have an economic interest, whether it is doing scientific research or in any related business, fully disclose your background. That presently is not going on. So that is an improvement. That is an enhancement. We explicitly ask that public input be allowed, that it be encouraged. There is nothing wrong with that. There are a lot of really bright people around this country who have great understanding of the issues that affect their day-to-day lives and should be able to share that. Can the Board stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing something? It is an advisory board. Their power is not in being able to stop an action of the EPA, but their power is making them justify the action that they are proposing to take, to justify the science that leads to that action. There is nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I suppose the bottom line is this: We live in an extremely cynical time. Surprisingly, there is distrust even of the United States Congress and all Federal institutions, I am afraid. This bill is an effort to take a step in the direction of restoring that faith and confidence. Call it enhanced transparency if you want; call it openness if you want; call it just making sure we all know where the money is going and where the money is coming from. Whatever you want to call it, this is a bill that tries to move us in the direction of not only better regulations when we must have regulations, but better science to justify those regulations and the confidence of all of our fellow citizens. I simply ask, Mr. Chairman, when the opportunity avails--I know we will have several good amendments to discuss shortly--that my colleagues support H.R. 1029, and we move this process forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a very senior and knowledgeable member of the House Science Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would apologize to the gentlelady. I was just informed that the majority floor leader would like to speak for 1 minute. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority floor leader.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. I would note to the gentlelady, at the present time I do not have any additional speakers, so whenever you are prepared to close, I believe I have the right to close ultimately.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1029.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from the American Farm Bureau, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and from other entities that are in support of H.R. 1029. March 2, 2015. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the nation's largest general farm organization, I am writing in support of H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. AFBF strongly supports this legislation and is committed to working with you in pressing for its swift consideration. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) is intended to review the scientific basis for EPA regulatory decisions, but shortcomings have become clear including limited public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, and potential conflicts of interest. H.R. 1029 reforms the SAB process by strengthening public participation, improving the process of selecting expert advisors, reducing conflicts of interest and enhancing transparency. The legislation draws from EPA's own Peer Review Handbook and recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center to urge sensible reforms. H.R. 1029 would make the SAB a more robust tool that in the future would impact the development of flawed EPA action such as the recent WOWS proposed rule. American Farm Bureau Federation supports H.R. 1029 because farmers and ranchers deserve good governance and regulations based on meaningful scientific review. This legislation deserves strong, bipartisan support. We applaud your leadership in this effort and will continue to work with you to ensure passage of H.R. 1029. Sincerely, Bob Stallman, President.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire about the time remaining between the two sides?

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2244, a bill to extend the expiration date of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Specifically, I support H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act that is included as a part of this larger effort. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 634 provides critical regulatory relief to end users, the market participants, businesses, and job creators that use derivatives to manage the risks they face in their daily operations. For example, farmers who need to hedge against the volatility of crop prices and manufacturers who need to hedge against the rising input costs of fuel use derivatives as a part of their business plans. During the consideration of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress clearly intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new regulations, such as margin requirements. Margin requirements needlessly divert working capital away from job-creating production and investment; however, the CFTC has narrowly interpreted the law which has negatively impacted end users and their bottom line. Mr. Speaker, including the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act in today's bill permanently fixes this issue for end users. It ensures that those businesses which have been exempted from clearing requirements of their trades are also exempted from margining their trades, just as Congress always intended. The language in H.R. 634 has passed through the Committee on Agriculture by a voice vote and then through the House four other times. As a stand-alone bill, it passed with the support of 411 Members. Other times, as part of a larger package, it continued to receive overwhelming bipartisan support. The House of Representatives has spoken clearly on this issue: end users should not be required to post margin on their transactions. I thank the chairman for including the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilizations Act in today's bill. It is time to give our farms and our businesses the relief they need from this costly and damaging rule. I urge a vote for TRIA.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the inclusion of H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stability Act, as Title III of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This language, which was also included in H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End-User Relief Act, provides an important protection to end-users from costly margining requirements that will divert need capital away from job creation. I support of this title, I would like to request that the pertinent portions of the Committee on Agriculture report to accompany H.R. 4413 be included in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record. Title 3--End-User Relief