Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Massachusetts for offering this amendment, but I must oppose it. The gentleman's amendment implies that the bill does something that, in fact, it does not. The amendment also creates a loophole the EPA Administrator could easily exploit. First, by stating that nothing in the act prevents the EPA from considering or relying upon peer reviewed science, the amendment appears to imply that the bill would do otherwise. This is simply not true. The EPA, through its implementation of the Information Quality Act, is already required to rely on peer reviewed information. Nothing in this legislation changes that. What this bill would accomplish--and what the gentleman's amendment would undermine--is to ensure that the science the EPA relies upon is publicly available and verifiable. Independent scientists don't have an opportunity to examine the assumptions and methodologies that EPA relies upon when it makes public regulations. It is time for the EPA to show its work and come out into the daylight. Peer review alone is not a sufficient check. Peer reviewers are not always provided the underlying data, and the quality of peer review is highly variable. The simple premise behind H.R. 1030 is that public policy should be backed up by public data. Peer review alone does not allow independent scientists to verify the EPA's claims. This amendment would destroy the purpose of the bill and provide the EPA Administrator with permission to disregard the basic principles of transparency and accountability that are provided by H.R. 1030. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), who is a hardworking member of the Science Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1030.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to thank Science Committee member and Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert for his great efforts on this particular subject. Our goal is to help advance not just any science, but the best science. Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public and that can be verified. H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, gives independent scientists an opportunity to validate the studies EPA uses to make new regulations. In 2012, the President's own science adviser testified that, ``absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are based should be made available to the committee and should be made public.'' The chair of EPA's Science Advisory Board testified that EPA's advisers recommend ``that literature and data used by EPA be peer reviewed and be made available to the public.'' Let me repeat. The chair of EPA's own Science Advisory Board said the data EPA relies upon should be public. And a recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make Federal Government decisions should be public. Relying on public data prevents the manipulation of scientific evidence. So this bill is no different from any other sunshine law, such as the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn't roll back the laws that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink; it simply requires the EPA to use the best available science when it makes new regulations. In other words, the EPA should rely upon good science, not science fiction. The bill does not change or repeal critical privacy laws that prevent the EPA from releasing confidential information. It does not give the EPA any new authority to take private information and make it public. In fact, it prohibits that. In a democratic society, regulations should not be based upon undisclosed data. Maybe in Putin's Russia, but not in the United States of America. Undisclosed data rightfully raises a lot of suspicions. Actually, this bill is more than just about data. It is about an agency that apparently doesn't trust the American people. The EPA thinks it knows better than the American people what is good for them. It is time to change that mindset. It is time to restore faith in our government and return the power to the people. It is time for honesty, and it is past time to ensure that the EPA bases their regulations on data that is public. The American people deserve to see the data. Let us not forget the President also asked for this. H.R. 1030 ensures the speedy implementation of President Obama's Executive Order 13536, to give the public access to federally funded science. This bill supports the administration's commitment to open science, but now they threaten to veto it. It makes you wonder what the administration is trying to hide and whether you can believe what they say. If you support this administration's promise to be the most transparent in history and want to make the EPA's data public, then support H.R. 1030. Mr. Chairman, finally, there are three questions that those who are opposed either can't answer or won't answer: One, what is the EPA hiding? Two, why won't they make the data public? And three, why doesn't the EPA trust the American people? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its regulations on unbiased, publicly accessible science that can be verified. Why would anyone want to hide this information from the American people? This is essentially the same bill that was introduced in the last Congress by the former Environment Subcommittee chairman, David Schweikert, and it passed with bipartisan support last November. We must make sure that Federal regulations are based on science that is available for independent review. Many Americans are unaware that some of the EPA's most expensive and burdensome regulations, such as its proposed ozone rules, are based on data that not even the EPA has seen. The EPA contracts out scientific research to third parties whom the EPA relies upon to justify its regulations, but if independent scientists ask for details, the Agency claims that it doesn't have the data, and so results cannot be verified. This is ``trust me'' science, which should make us suspicious, and it clearly conflicts with this administration's promise to be the most transparent in history. This bill ensures that the decisions that affect every American are based on independently verified, unbiased scientific research instead of on secret data that is hidden behind closed doors. The Secret Science Reform Act does not weaken privacy laws. In fact, it states that nothing in the bill will supersede privacy laws. It does not give the EPA any new authority to take private information and make it public. The Secret Science Reform Act simply prohibits the Agency from relying on nonpublic data that cannot be verified by independent scientists. The bill requires the EPA to use data that is available to the public when the Agency writes its regulations. This allows independent researchers to evaluate the studies that the EPA uses to justify its regulations. This is the scientific method. How can we believe claims by the government about the costs and benefits of regulations if the science that allegedly justifies them cannot be verified by independent experts? What does the EPA want to hide? This bill does not require the EPA to pay to disseminate the data it relies on publicly. Unfortunately, the CBO's old cost estimate on a previous bill ignores this point. If a third party has researched data that it believes the EPA should rely on in its rulemaking, that third party should make it publicly available so that the EPA and other scientists can check its work. There is nothing in the bill that compels the EPA to shoulder this cost, which is where the CBO went wrong in scoring the cost of this bill. The EPA has received over $8 billion this year. Billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars have been spent by the EPA, and taxpayers deserve to know whether it went to good science or to politically correct science. Today, we have an opportunity to set a new course and let the American people see the data. The EPA should use sound science based on public data, not secret data hidden from the American people. This bill also will help the EPA focus its resources on the best possible science. That, in turn, will ensure a healthier, happier, and more prosperous future for all Americans. The days of ``trust me'' science are over. An open government that is accountable to the people is essential to protect Americans from excessive government control. The EPA has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves and whose money it uses. If you support the right of the people to see the EPA's data, then support this bill and help the administration keep its promise to be open and honest with the American people. In God we trust. All others, especially the EPA, must use public data, not secret science. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is a former chairman of the Environment Subcommittee of the Science Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I almost feel like we ought to take a 5-minute recess and allow everybody a chance to read the bill, which, again, is only two pages long. There is nothing in this bill that tells scientists how to conduct their science. All the bill does is to say that the data should be publicly available and should be independently verified and let the American people see it--nothing more, nothing less. That is why, according to a public opinion poll, 90 percent of the American people support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), who happens to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Texas. I would like to call Members' attention to page 1, line 12 of this bill. Again, it is only two pages long. I hope everybody will take the time to read it. Line 12 of the first page points out that the Administrator of the EPA shall use the best available science. Once again, the bill actually calls upon the Administrator to use the best available science. The question is: Why does the EPA want to hide this science? Why does it want to hide this data? Why won't it let the American people see this data? That is the question of the hour. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, for her amendment, but I must oppose it. This amendment would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its practice of hiding data from the American people. This amendment is based upon what appears to be a misreading of the bill that has resulted in an inaccurate score by the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the statutory language directly contradicts the CBO's analysis, and here is why. For its analysis, CBO assumed that the bill requires the EPA to collect and disseminate the underlying data of the science it relies upon. Through some unknown calculation, CBO then came up with a $250 million price tag for the collection and dissemination of the data. However, the bill does not require the collection and dissemination of information. It simply says that the EPA must use data that is public and available to independent scientists. The bill itself states that there is no requirement for the EPA to disseminate scientific and technical information. Again, I urge my colleagues to read the bill. So let me say it again. This bill does not require the EPA to disseminate information. It simply says that, when the EPA decides to regulate, it needs to rely on the best available science that is publicly available for independent verification and review. So the CBO is way off base--not for the first time--and, therefore, so is this amendment. CBO's cost estimate also contradicts the clear statutory bill language, which reads: ``The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1 million per fiscal year to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.'' When the CBO says that under this legislation the EPA will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to collect and disseminate new data, that is clearly inconsistent with the language and intent of the bill. So the CBO's cost estimate is meaningless. But let's assume that the EPA decides it must collect and disseminate the data itself. EPA has an $8 billion budget. It spends more than $20 million of taxpayer money every day to issue regulations that cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year. And the President has asked Congress for an increase of $50 million for the Agency this year. Surely the EPA can base its rules on science that is transparent and available to everyone, and do it with funds from its already massive budget. A Federal agency that spends over $8 billion a year in taxpayer money should be able to afford to honor the public's right to know. This amendment would allow the EPA to continue business as usual and would ignore congressional intent and statutory language. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentleman from Oklahoma. I want to point out that this bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and The Center for Regulatory Solutions. I want to call all Members' attention to the actual language of the bill itself. If they will look on page 2, they will find out that this bill does protect privacy, and it does so specifically. It prevents the EPA from releasing confidential information, and it clarifies that this bill does not supersede any privacy laws. In fact, the EPA Administrator, herself, wrote this in a recent letter: The Agency's efforts ultimately resulted in the Center for Disease Control reaching the conclusion that all the research data could be provided without the need for de- identification, and further, the National Academy of Sciences has said the same thing. We are happy to stand with them. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, the vice chairman of the Science Committee, for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, Americans expect the review of regulatory science to be balanced and transparent. H.R. 1029, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures scientists get the opportunity to provide unbiased, independent advice to the Environmental Protection Agency and to Congress. I thank Congressman Lucas and the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, for their initiative on this issue. This bill strengthens the EPA Science Advisory Board's independence so that the administration cannot manipulate science to further its political agenda. Hardworking American families are hit hard by costly regulations, whether it is through lost jobs or higher electric bills and gasoline prices, and the EPA has been known to twist science to justify its actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review process that was intended to provide a critical check on the EPA's conclusions. The EPA Science Advisory Board was created to provide a meaningful, balanced, and independent assessment of the science that supports the EPA's regulations. Unfortunately, this goal is not being realized. The EPA frequently undermines the SAB's independence and prevents it from being able to provide advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted, and the truth is silenced. The public's right to know must be protected in a democracy. As the EPA now seeks to pursue the most aggressive regulatory agenda in its 44-year history, it is critical that the SAB be able to give unbiased advice. The more regulations the EPA creates, the more we need the involvement of an open and transparent Science Advisory Board. This bill simply gives independent experts an opportunity to review the science and provide advice. We all know that the Federal Government doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, so it is important to get the public's take on regulations. The bill does not create an unlimited public comment period, but the public does have a right to know what the Federal Government is doing to them. H.R. 1029 expands transparency requirements, improves the process for selecting expert advisers, and strengthens public participation requirements. This bipartisan legislation restores the independent Board as an important defender of scientific integrity. Its commonsense reforms will help make the EPA's decisions more credible and more balanced. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for their leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the San Antonio Music Teachers Association (SAMTA) in San Antonio, Texas. SAMTA has provided education and performance opportunities for music teachers and their students, including recitals, auditions, competitions and lecture series. SAMTA provides scholarships necessary to many students who need financial assistance to continue with thier music education. Members of SAMTA serve on the faculty of schools, colleges and universities. Members also perform on the concert stage and in houses of worship. SAMTA has elevated the level of professional standards and musicianship in San Antonio and the surrounding area. We are very grateful for the service they provide to aspiring musicians in our local community.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), who is a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and is also vice chair of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. 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 under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Is it too late for me to yield time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), who I had mentioned a while ago was on the way to the House floor to speak on this particular bill?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the STEM Education Act of 2015 is bipartisan legislation that includes computer science in the definition of STEM education for programs and activities at our Federal science agencies. The bill also supports and strengthens ongoing STEM education efforts at the National Science Foundation. Similar legislation passed the House last year by voice vote. I thank Representative Elizabeth Esty for cosponsoring the bill again this year. I also thank our new Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Comstock, Subcommittee Ranking Member Dan Lipinski, Subcommittee Vice Chair John Moolenaar, and Representatives Randy Hultgren, Larry Bucshon, Chris Collins, David McKinley, and Jaime Herrera Beutler for their support. Last Congress the Science, Space, and Technology Committee held several hearings on STEM education. Each hearing highlighted the importance of STEM education to keep America on the cutting edge of new products and ideas. Our hearings discussed the merits of ensuring computer science is included as a component of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that make up STEM education. Today a variety of jobs in industries from banking to engineering to medicine require familiarity with computer science. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, computing and mathematics will be one of the top 10 fastest growing major occupational groups from 2010 to 2020, with a growth rate of 4 percent annually compared to 1 percent for all other industries. Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it comes to STEM education. American students rank 21st in science and 26th in math. That must change for the better. We need to ensure that our Nation's youth have the scientific and mathematical skills to strive and thrive in a technology-based economy, but we have to capture and hold the desire of young adults to study STEM subjects so they will want to pursue these careers. H.R. 1020 includes language suggested by Mr. Lipinski to support informal STEM education programs and activities at the National Science Foundation. These activities reach students outside of the classroom and strengthen a student's engagement in STEM subject areas. The STEM Education Act also ensures that teachers working towards a master's degree program in STEM subjects can participate in the Robert Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship program. I thank Ms. Esty for this good addition to the bill. This program provides opportunities for teachers who want to bolster their teaching skills. Through the Master Teaching fellowships, individuals receive training in order to become highly effective mathematics and science teachers. With this bill, the program now will encourage more teachers to pursue advanced degrees. A healthy and viable STEM workforce literate in all STEM subjects, including computer science, is critical to American industries. A well- educated and trained STEM workforce ensures our future economic prosperity. More graduates with STEM degrees means more advanced technologies and a more robust economy. Support for this bill from organizations like the STEM Education Coalition, STEM4US!, and Code.org illustrate the importance of aligning our Federal STEM programs with workforce needs. We must work to ensure that students continue to go into these fields so that their innovative ideas can lead to a more innovative and prosperous America. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.