Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 advances weather research and technology and will transform our Nation's weather industry. I thank the vice chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Lucas, for sponsoring this legislation. We must better understand short-term weather events so that we can better protect lives and property. Severe weather routinely affects large portions of the United States. Nearly every year, we witness the devastating effects of tornadoes and intense storms across our country. This bill will ensure that Americans are more protected from severe weather because of accurate supercomputing, forecasts, and earlier warnings. H.R. 353 directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to prioritize its research to improve weather data, modeling, computing, forecasting, and warnings. This enables NOAA to support its core mission of protecting lives and property. The bill strengthens NOAA's ability to study the underlying atmospheric science while simultaneously advancing innovative technologies and reforming operations to provide better weather data models and forecasts. Also, the legislation creates a tornado research program to develop more accurate, effective, and timely tornado forecasts. This program will increase our understanding of these deadly events, just as the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program advanced our ability to predict and forecast hurricanes. The bill improves weather observation systems through the use of observing system simulation experiments and next generation computing and modeling capabilities. These requirements will help ensure we use the best and most appropriate technologies to protect our country from severe weather. It prompts NOAA to actively embrace new commercial data and private sector weather solutions through a multiyear commercial weather data pilot program. Further, it directs NOAA to seriously consider commercial data options rather than rely on slow, costly, and often delayed government-owned satellites. For far too long, our government has relied on these massive multibillion-dollar government weather satellites. The government has failed to consider other options that could help strengthen our weather industry. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over NOAA's satellite office and conducts ongoing oversight of the agency's satellite program. Our conclusion is that NOAA is in need of real reform. Over the years, events at NOAA have revealed mismanagement, cost overruns, and launching delays of its weather satellites. This detracts from our ability to accurately predict our own weather, which places Americans in harm's way. It is also a tremendous burden to taxpayers who have to pay the massive bills for these satellites. This is a waste of resources that should be put to better use. This bill gives NOAA a new vision and allows NOAA the flexibility to buy new, affordable, and potentially better sources of data from the private sector. With more and better options, we can finally have the power to make real improvements to our weather forecasting capabilities. This is long overdue. The bill also creates a much-needed technology transfer fund in NOAA's research office to help push technologies into operation. This ensures that the technologies that are developed are effectively employed and do not sit idly on the lab bench. I again thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and I thank the former Environment Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bridenstine, for their initiative on this issue. I also want to thank Senator Thune for helping produce bipartisan and bicameral legislation that will protect all Americans from harmful weather events. Americans from coast to coast will now be better prepared for severe weather with the passage of this bill. Recently, we have seen the devastating effects of severe weather across our country, especially in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi, among other States. This bill will help these residents be better prepared so that they can protect their property and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), who is the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and also the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who is the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 353) to improve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's weather research through a focused program of investment on affordable and attainable advances in observational, computing, and modeling capabilities to support substantial improvement in weather forecasting and prediction of high impact weather events, to expand commercial opportunities for the provision of weather data, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of hard work and negotiations that have spanned 5 years. Today, we finalize this House- initiated weather policy reform legislation that will benefit residents throughout the United States. H.R. 353 greatly improves our ability to predict short-term severe weather events. It better protects lives and property, a core mission of NOAA that has needed greater attention in recent years. Again, I want to thank Mr. Lucas and Mr. Bridenstine for their initiative on this issue. I thank the former Environment Subcommittee chairman, Representative Chris Stewart, for his years of commitment to this subject as well. I especially appreciate Ms. Bonamici and her 5 years of effort to make this a bipartisan bill. I would like to thank the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment staff for their years of effort on this bill, especially Taylor Jordan, who worked diligently to ensure that this bill became a reality. I also recognize the minority staff who were central to the process as well. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will transform our weather forecasting ability. It ensures that we, once again, have a world-class forecasting system that will protect lives and property from the dangers of severe weather. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), who is a very active member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks) who is the vice chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I want to recognize a few high school students from San Antonio and the surrounding area who raised over $500,000 in 7 weeks while campaigning for the Students of the Year title, a campaign launched by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Ella Behnke, 16, a senior at Alamo Heights High School, raised over $334,000 in 7 weeks to become The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's ``2017 Student of the Year.'' Ella was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins Lymphoblastic Lymphoma at the age of 2. She has been in remission for several years now. P.J. O'Toole, 15, a freshman at Smithson Valley High School in Spring Branch, Texas, raised over $50,000 during the 7-week campaign, becoming the ``2017 Student of the Year Runner Up.'' P.J. was the only freshman to run in the campaign against 11 upper classmen. P.J. is also a leukemia survivor. At the age of 6, he was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). With only a 70 percent chance of survival, today P.J. is in remission. Raising over $50,000 each means that both Ella Behnke and P.J. O'Toole will have the opportunity to name an LLS research grant in honor of whomever they choose. For the South Central Texas Chapter--San Antonio Inaugural Campaign, 12 candidates raised an outstanding $502,000 this year. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Students of the Year campaign is a fundraising competition in communities across the United States in which participants vie for the title of Student of the Year. They raise funds for blood cancer research in honor of local children who are blood cancer survivors. In appreciation of all they have done, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking them for their efforts to advance the treatment of Leukemia and Lymphoma.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 175 inventors who will soon be recognized at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and inducted as the 2016 Fellows of the National Academy of Inventors (NAI) in an induction ceremony that will feature a keynote address by U.S. Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld. In order to be named as a Fellow, these men and women were nominated by their peers and have undergone the scrutiny of the NAI Selection Committee, having had their innovations deemed as making significant impact on quality of life, economic development, and welfare of society. Collectively, this elite group holds nearly 5,500 patents. The individuals making up this year's class of Fellows include individuals from 135 research universities and non-profit research institutes spanning the United States and the world. The now 757-member group of Fellows is composed of more than 90 presidents and senior leaders of research universities and non-profit research institutes, 376 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 28 inductees of the National Inventors Hall of Fame, 45 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of Technology and Innovation and U.S. National Medal of Science, 28 Nobel Laureates, 216 AAAS Fellows, 126 IEEE Fellows, and 116 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, among other awards and distinctions. The NAI was founded in 2010 to recognize and encourage inventors with patents issued from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, enhance the visibility of academic technology and innovation, encourage the disclosure of intellectual property, educate and mentor innovative students, and translate the inventions of its members to benefit society. We are greatly indebted to innovators such as these for contributions to society through their inventions. I commend these individuals, and the organizations and taxpayers that support them, for the work they do to revolutionize the world we live in. As the following inventors are inducted, may it encourage future generations to strive to meet this high honor and continue the spirit of discovery and innovation. The 2016 NAI Fellows include: David Akopian, The University of Texas at San Antonio; Kamal S. Ali, Jackson State University; A. Paul Alivisatos, University of California, Berkeley; Carl R. Alving, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; Hamid Arastoopour, Illinois Institute of Technology; Peter Arsenault, Tufts University; B. Jayant Baliga, North Carolina State University; Zhenan Bao, Stanford University; Richard G. Baraniuk, Rice University; Francis Barany, Cornell University; Jean-Marie Basset, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; Paula J. Bates, University of Louisville; Craig C. Beeson, Medical University of South Carolina; K. Darrell Berlin, Oklahoma State University; Sarit B. Bhaduri, The University of Toledo; Pallab K. Bhattacharya, University of Michigan; Dieter H. Bimberg, Technical University of Berlin, Germany ; Christopher N. Bowman, University of Colorado Boulder; Barbara D. Boyan, Virginia Commonwealth University; Mindy M. Brashears, Texas Tech University; Donald J. Buchsbaum, The University of Alabama at Birmingham; Ruben G. Carbonell, North Carolina State University; John F. Carpenter, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus; Raghunath V. Chaudhari, The University of Kansas; Junhong Chen, University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee; Liang-Gee Chen, National Taiwan University, Taiwan; Simon R. Cherry, University of California, Davis; Michael J. Cima, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Adrienne E. Clarke, La Trobe University, Australia; Larry A. Coldren, University of California, Santa Barbara; Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland; Diane J. Cook, Washington State University; Peter A. Crooks, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Riccardo Dalla-Favera, Columbia University; Suman Datta, University of Notre Dame; Delbert E. Day, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Roger A. de la Torre, University of Missouri, Columbia; Stephen W. Director, Northeastern University; Jeffrey L. Duerk, Case Western Reserve University; James L. Dye, Michigan State University; Richard L. Ehman, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research; Gary A. Eiceman, New Mexico State University; Ali Emadi, McMaster University, Canada; Ronald M. Evans, Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Stanley Falkow, Stanford University; Hany Farid, Dartmouth College; Shane M. Farritor, University of Nebraska--Lincoln; Philippe M. Fauchet, Vanderbilt University; Denise L. Faustman, Massachusetts General Hospital; David R. Fischell, Cornell University; Vincent A. Fischetti, The Rockefeller University; David P. Fries, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition; Kenneth G. Furton, Florida International University; Kanad Ghose, Binghamton University, SUNY; Juan E. Gilbert, University of Florida; Linda C. Giudice, University of California, San Francisco; Herbert Gleiter, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany; Dan M. Goebel, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Forouzan Golshani, California State University, Long Beach; Lorne M. Golub, Stony Brook University, SUNY; John B. Goodenough, The University of Texas at Austin; Michael Graetzel, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland; Robert J. Greenberg, Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research; Richard M. Greenwald, Dartmouth College; Patrick G. Halbur, Iowa State University; Henry R. Halperin, Johns Hopkins University; Amy E. Herr, University of California, Berkeley; D. Craig Hooper, Thomas Jefferson University; Edward A. Hoover, Colorado State University; Oliver Yoa-Pu Hu, National Defense Medical Center, Taiwan; David Huang, Oregon Health & Science University; Mark S. Humayun, University of Southern California; Joseph P. Iannotti, Cleveland Clinic; Enrique Iglesia, University of California, Berkeley; Sungho Jin, University of California, San Diego; Barry W. Johnson, University of Virginia; William L. Johnson, California Institute of Technology; John L. Junkins, Texas A&M University; Michelle Khine, University of California, Irvine; John Klier, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Thomas J. Kodadek, The Scripps Research Institute; Harold L. Kohn, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Steven M. Kuznicki, University of Alberta, Canada; Enrique J. Lavernia, University of California, Irvine; Nicholas J. Lawrence, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute; Leslie A. Leinwand, University of Colorado Boulder; Frances S. Ligler, North Carolina State University; Yilu Liu, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Jennifer K. Lodge, Washington University in St. Louis; Gabriel P. Lopez, The University of New Mexico; Mandi J. Lopez, Louisiana State University; Surya K. Mallapragada, Iowa State University; Seth R. Marder, Georgia Institute of Technology; Alan G. Marshall, Florida State University; Raghunath A. Mashelkar, National Innovation Foundation--India; Kouki Matsuse, Meiji University, Japan; Martin M. Matzuk, Baylor College of Medicine; T. Dwayne McCay, Florida Institute of Technology; James W. McGinity, The University of Texas at Austin; Thomas J. Meade, Northwestern University; Katrina L. Mealey, Washington State University; Edward W. Merrill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Paul L. Modrich, Duke University; H. Keith Moo-Young, Washington State University Tri-Cities; David J. Mooney, Harvard University; Israel J. Morejon, University of South Florida; Harold L. Moses, Vanderbilt University; Joseph R. Moskal, Northwestern University; Nazim Z. Muradov, University of Central Florida; Nicholas Muzyczka, University of Florida; Lakshmi S. Nair, University of Connecticut; Shrikanth S. Narayanan, University of Southern California; Erin K. O'Shea, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Ellen Ochoa, NASA Johnson Space Center; Francis A. Papay, Cleveland Clinic; Kevin J. Parker, University of Rochester; Yvonne J. Paterson, University of Pennsylvania; George N. Pavlakis, National Institutes of Health; Kenneth H. Perlin, New York University; Nasser Peyghambarian, The University of Arizona; Gary A. Piazza, University of South Alabama; Christophe Pierre, Stevens Institute of Technology; Michael C. Pirrung, University of California, Riverside; Michael V. Pishko, University of Wyoming; Garth Powis, Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute; Paras N. Prasad, University at Buffalo, SUNY; Ronald T. Raines, University of Wisconsin--Madison; Ragunathan (Raj) Rajkumar, Carnegie Mellon University; Michael P. Rastatter, East Carolina University; Jacob (Kobi) Richter, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Israel; Richard E. Riman, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Andrew G. Rinzler, University of Florida; Bruce E. Rittmann, Arizona State University; Nabeel A. Riza, University College Cork, Ireland; Kenneth J. Rothschild, Boston University; Stuart H. Rubin, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center; Linda J. Saif, The Ohio State University; Sudeep Sarkar, University of South Florida; John T. Schiller, National Institutes of Health; Diane G. Schmidt, University of Cincinnati; Wayne S. Seames, University of North Dakota; Michael S. Shur, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; David Sidransky, Johns Hopkins University; Mrityunjay Singh, Ohio Aerospace Institute; Kamalesh K. Sirkar, New Jersey Institute of Technology; David R. Smith, Duke University; James E. Smith, West Virginia University; Terrance P. Snutch, The University of British Columbia, Canada; Ponisseril Somasundaran, Columbia University; Gerald Sonnenfeld, University of Rhode Island; James S. Speck, University of California, Santa Barbara; Sidlgata V. Sreenivasan, The University of Texas at Austin; Bruce W. Stillman, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Daniele C. Struppa, Chapman University; Kenneth S. Suslick, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign; Mark J. Suto, Southern Research Institute; Yu-Chong Tai, California Institute of Technology; Nelson Tansu, Lehigh University; Fleur T. Tehrani, California State University, Fullerton; Marc T. Tessier-Lavigne, Stanford University; Madhukar (Mathew) L. Thakur, Thomas Jefferson University; Mehmet Toner, Massachusetts General Hospital; Jan T. Vilcek, New York University; Anil V. Virkar, The University of Utah; John F. Wager, Oregon State University; William R. Wagner, University of Pittsburgh; Isiah M. Warner, Louisiana State University; John D. Weete, Auburn University; Andrew M. Weiner, Purdue University; Ralph Weissleder, Massachusetts General Hospital; Thomas M. Weller, University of South Florida; Jennifer L. West, Duke University; Amnon Yariv, California Institute of Technology; Yun Yen, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan; Warren M. Zapol, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, criminal laws may well have been broken when the Obama administration conducted surveillance of candidate and then-President-elect Trump and those close to him, including his family members. It is reported that a former national security adviser under President Obama ordered the names of Trump associates to be revealed rather than kept confidential, as would normally be the case with any American citizen. This exposing and disseminating personal information may well have been a criminal act. A serious question is: Who authorized the surveillance in the first place? To direct intelligence or law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance of political opponents is a violation of the Constitution and a threat to our democracy. But the Obama administration wrongfully asked the IRS to target conservative organizations, so anything is possible. One thing is for sure--the American people need to learn a lot more about what the Obama administration did and who did it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for yielding to me, and I would also like to thank him for his leadership on H.R. 1431, the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. This bill gives much needed transparency, fairness, and balance to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. These reforms will strengthen the public's trust of the science the EPA uses to support its regulations. It also allows more public participation in the EPA science review process, and it requires the SAB to be more responsive to the public and to congressional questions, inquiries, and oversight. Last Congress, similar legislation passed the House with bipartisan support. I appreciate Mr. Lucas and the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Representative Peterson, for introducing this legislation. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, and recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 229, I call up the bill (H.R. 1430) to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who is the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.

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, H.R. 1430.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017, or HONEST Act, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its regulations on science that is publicly available. Why would anyone want to hide this information from the American people? I thank former Science Committee member and former Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert for his longtime commitment to this issue, and for sponsoring the Secret Science Reform Act in the 113th Congress. In the last Congress, a similar bill passed the House with bipartisan support. Our goal is to help advance not just any science, but the best science. The HONEST Act is a nonpartisan bill: a change in administration does not affect the public's right to know and see the science behind the EPA's regulations. This legislation ensures that sound science is the basis for EPA decisions and regulatory actions. The days of ``trust-me science'' are over. In our modern Information Age, Federal regulations should be based only upon data that is available for every American to see, and that can be subjected to independent review. That is called the scientific method. We can all agree that the government should rely on the best available science. Unfortunately, the government does not always hold to this standard. Looking at the EPA's past record, it is clear that the Agency has not followed an open and honest process. For example, many major air-quality regulations from the previous administration were justified by data that the EPA said they had not seen, even though they proposed the regulation. This means that the EPA's claims about the cost and benefits of its regulations and the real risk they are meant to address cannot be independently verified by unbiased experts. If the EPA's mandates really are based on sound science, then the American people should be allowed to see the data. The EPA's past refusal to cooperate, leads to the question: What have they been hiding? Americans have a right to be suspicious. Mr. Speaker, we all care about the environment, but if policies are not based on legitimate science, regulations will result in economic hardship with little or no environmental benefits. In other words, the regulations would be all pain and no gain. This bill strengthens the previous House-passed legislation of the last Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act. That bill also required the EPA to base its decisions on information fully available to scientists and the American people. You may hear from opponents of this legislation that it costs too much money. That is based on a CBO estimate from 2 years ago that misinterprets the implementation requirements of the bill. CBO has not reissued that misinterpretation this year after consulting with the EPA. All the HONEST Act requires is that the EPA use science that is publicly available, not make all science public itself. So the cost is negligible. Some critics may claim that it puts personal data at risk. This is false. The HONEST Act specifically requires redactions of personally identifiable information and confidential business information. It is also misleading to assert that the bill tells scientists how to conduct science. The opposite is true. The bill reinforces the scientific method and its tenets of observing, hypothesizing, testing, gathering and sharing data, and analyzing and challenging the resulting theories. It allows independent researchers to evaluate the studies that the EPA uses to justify its regulations. The HONEST Act promotes sound science and restores confidence in the EPA decisionmaking process. Finally, the HONEST Act ensures that the EPA is not promoting a one- sided ideological agenda. The legislation provides for the type of open and accountable government that the American people want and deserve. You are either for an open and honest government, or you are not. If you are, then support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would like to alleviate the ranking member's unfounded concerns and remind her that the National Academy of Sciences itself has explained that transparency in science is possible without any risk to confidentiality or privacy. This is what the National Academy of Sciences said: ``Nothing in the past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach.'' So I hope that will alleviate her concerns. Really, it comes down to whether you are for an open and honest government or not. That is what this bill is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), who is the chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), who is the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I don't see how we can make it more clear to anybody who brings up the privacy arguments. If they go to lines 17 through 21 of page 2 of the bill, it states: `` . . . any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.'' Any misconstruing of that is unfortunate, and it is not an accurate description of that provision. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), who is also the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to keep up with all the misstatements about this bill, but I am going to try. The immediate past speaker on the other side talked about the cost of the bill; and I am sure he didn't do it intentionally, but he was using a 2-year-out-of-date cost. We have an email from the CBO as of this past Monday that says the CBO estimates this legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues, so there is no cost, despite what Members might hear otherwise. Also, it is just hard for me to understand how any Member of Congress could oppose open and honest government. All this bill does is to say that the data has to be transparent, the data has to be publicly available. If they want more government control, more environmental regulations that can't be justified, that is one thing; but don't oppose the bill for the wrong reasons. The bill does nothing more than require open, transparent, and honest government. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of times today that the bill prevents the EPA from using the best available science. I hope that Members who are listening to this debate, and others, will take the time to actually look at the language of the bill. Here is the exact language, page 2, line 13. The first requirement of the bill is that the EPA ``use the best available science.'' I don't know what more we can do and how better we can spell it out. The bill is only a little over three pages long. I really do recommend that the folks who oppose it read the bill itself and actually look at the language and the usual understanding and definition of the words, and I hope they will be satisfied. We have also heard that the scientific community opposes the bill, but let me quote from a couple of Obama administration officials. Dr. John Holdren, the President's science adviser, said that: ``Absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are based should be made available to the committee and should be made public.'' The same was said by the chair of the EPA's Science Advisory Board. This is the EPA's Science Advisory Board. They testified before the committee that literature and data used by the EPA be made available to the public. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), who is the vice chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Colorado attended the hearing we had this morning on the scientific method and climate change, but I am not sure he was listening, because not a single witness on either side denied the facts around climate change. I also want to reassure him--he is worried about Colorado, and I understand that--that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there was low confidence in any connection between climate change and extreme weather events. So I hope there will not be any unusual extreme weather events in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee and the Agriculture Committee.