Chris Stewart

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup. So we conclude our time tonight. Do you sense, do you understand, those of you who are listening and watching, do you see that we have legitimate and deeply-held concerns about the direction that this administration is moving? There are so many questions. Can we trust Iran? You have seen and heard example after example of how they have worked against our interests, how they have been a destructive influence in so many parts of the world. We ask the question, as I asked Secretary Kerry last week: Can you give me a single example of them partnering with us or any of our allies in any positive way? The answer was no. Are we being true to our allies? Israel is our only friend and ally in a chaotic part of the world. They recognize and respect human rights, including minority rights, including the rights of women. They have called this an existential threat. There is a reason they call Israel a one-bomb nation. That is all it would take to destroy their entire country. Could we allow ourselves to be put in a position where that might be their reality? Is this in agreement with our own national interest? Remember the map that I showed you, North Korea, throughout Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America, even on our borders of Mexico. Finally, Madam Speaker, I hope the President understands our concerns. I hope he isn't so determined to add a feather in his legacy cap that would conclude an agreement that endangers our allies or our own national interest. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I am reminded almost daily in the briefings that we have that we live in a dangerous and chaotic world. It is unpredictable. It is becoming more so. It is dark and chaotic. As Abraham Lincoln said, we are the ``last best hope of Earth.'' That was true when he said it. It is true when I taught my children that. It will still be true when my children teach my grandchildren, but it will only be true if we stand by those principles that allow us to secure our own freedom and to protect the interests of our allies to whom we have made meaningful and important promises. With that, we conclude this time, asking the President to listen to our concerns and to address them as he moves forward with this critically important issue. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to recognize a true American hero, Utah veteran Billy Kirkbride, who was just awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Billy joined the Army in 1942, and he was chosen to be part of the unique program called the First Special Service Force which was the forerunner of today's Special Forces. It was here that he became a member of the very elite Devil's Brigade. The Congressional Gold Medal is awarded to those who have performed amazing feats leaving permanent impacts upon American culture and history. As a former Air Force pilot, I know the sacrifice and the dedication that it takes to become one of America's elite warriors. It is an honor to stand here today not just before the American people, but before his lovely wife and daughters to pay tribute to the sacrifice and dedication that Billy showed through his service to this great Nation. He doesn't just represent the strength of the Armed Forces, he represents American values that continue to make our Nation great, and millions of us are grateful for his service.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, for giving me time to express the importance of repealing what has been one of the most destructive laws ever written. The intent of ObamaCare was to make health care more accessible and more affordable and, in fact, has done exactly the opposite. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who tell me how it has impacted their lives. A friend of mine from Bountiful, their premiums have doubled--have doubled. A small business owner in the southern part of my district, who found they could not get insurance at all, their plan was entirely taken away. This law was built on a foundation of deceptions. We were told: ``If you wanted to keep your doctor, you could keep them.'' We were told: ``If you wanted to keep your plan, you could keep it.'' We were told it would reduce costs by an average of $2,500 per family. We now know that all of that is not true and that they knew at the time they passed this law that it was not true. All of us want to take care of those who have preexisting conditions; all of us want to provide insurance to the uninsured. We can do better.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in thanking my friend Mr. Smith for giving us this opportunity to address such an important and a deeply personal issue. I am the proud father of six children, and nothing in the world means more to me. My life changed forever the first time I held my first son. I look at my sons and daughters, and I am humbled by the responsibility it is to be their parent, and I am touched always by the power and the blessing of life. Now I am a grandfather, and that fact alone makes my life very good. This week we commemorate the anniversary of one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in the history of the United States, of course, Roe v. Wade. We also welcome thousands of pro-life activists who came to our Nation's Capital to participate in the March for Life. Think about that title for a moment, the March for Life. It is extremely important as Members of Congress to stand up for those who do not have a voice to stand up for themselves, our precious unborn children. Tomorrow the House will vote on H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which protects the lives of unborn by banning abortions at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy. With medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain by at least 20 weeks, if not earlier, I will support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Think of what we would be saying if we were to reject this bill. Now, I understand that there are exceptions, and I recognize the woman's health is just as important as her child. Thus, we made reasonable medical judgment exceptions, which would be made in the case of rape, incest, or an endangerment of the mother's life. As I conclude, I would like to reiterate my opening remarks. Each life is sacred. Each life has a right to protection. I urge my colleagues to help to defend the innocent lives of America's unborn children and represent those who cannot represent themselves.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I would like to be very clear: this debate is not about immigration. This debate is about something much more, much more important than that. This is a generational conflict over something that is very clear. It is not about Presidential prerogative or Presidential arrogance. As a military officer for 14 years, I had the honor of serving my country. Prior to doing that, I took a sacred oath of office, which is very similar to the oath that all of us took last week, to defend the Constitution of the United States. That is what this legislation is about. That is why this piece of legislation is so important. This legislation seeks to restore the balance of powers. It seeks to conform that vision that our Founding Fathers had, that miracle that was created in Philadelphia that summer. It seeks to conform and to preserve the principles that so many people have died for. The President is not a king. Congress is tasked to create the law. That is what this legislation is about. That is why it is so important that we support it.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. ``. . . the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, . . .''

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Washington has so ably noted, in areas where large tracts of land are part of the National Forest System, local school districts have relied in the past on timber harvesting receipts, shared with local governments, as an important source of revenue to support their school systems. This is a problem that was created by activists here in Washington, D.C. When Federal policies dramatically reduced logging receipts from our national forests, those schools were hit very hard. That is why we created the Secure Rural Schools program. This is real. It affects real people. It affects real families. It has affected many people in my own State. So I would like to ask my colleague: Are your local schools feeling the effects of a situation like mine?

Mr. STEWART. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I am discouraged to stand here and to announce a milestone that we reached recently, a very discouraging milestone, and that was in the last few days we have now surpassed $18 trillion in debt. If you want to know how much money that is, take every American taxpayer, from the young man who just got his first job to every mother and father who are struggling to take care of their families, and give them a bill for $150,000. It is simply unsustainable. If we continue down this current path, we will commit fiscal national suicide by our spending and our debt. Remember, a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the security of its people, a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the needy among them, and a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the children in the next generation. Now is the time to restore fiscal sanity. We must have the courage to reclaim the American Dream. Tax reform, entitlement reform, and a balanced budget--we must have the courage to make these a reality. But we can fix this. We must fix this. I hope we will have the courage to do this, even if it is hard.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, I would like to respond briefly, if I could, to the minority Member, some of her comments regarding this bill. The bill very clearly does not allow for the SAB to be stacked, to use her phrase, with the industry experts. I have the bill before me. It is only a couple of pages long. It is very simple. I would ask anyone to show me the language where it allows for the SAB to be stacked with industry experts. All we are asking is that there be some balance to those experts who are asked and that there, further, be transparency, and that we understand who is selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded from this, just like, by the way, we are not asking that those scientists who have EPA-funded backgrounds be excluded. We are not saying that they are conflicted to the point where they couldn't participate. We recognize that they have expertise that could help in this process. But we also are asking, on the other hand, that we recognize that there are industry experts who are currently being excluded from this because of their background. Of the 51 members of the current SAB, only three--only three--have any industry expertise, and we are losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would very quickly like to make a point. Once again, all we are seeking is fairness and transparency, and the opposition is claiming that it is okay for government-sponsored and - granted scientists to sit on this board. In fact, it is okay that 60 percent of them have tens of millions of dollars of government funding, but it is not okay for anyone from the industry, and it is completely transparent how unfair that standard would be. The second point I would make is this: we are not claiming that either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. We are just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the American people decide, and that certainly seems to be a fair standard and hardly the minimum that we could ask. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my good friend.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to also thank the ranking member, my friend from Oregon. We disagree on this bill, as it will become evident through this debate today, but she has always been respectful and professional, and I appreciate that. The issues we are debating today are important, and the decisions we will make today are significant. There is a process that is broken, and it is through this bill that we cannot only improve that process, but also restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government. If I could reemphasize what I just said, the process is broken. This is an opportunity for us to restore trust between the American people and the Federal Government that has fostered so much distrust of late. Established by Congress in 1978, the EPA's Science Advisory Board, or what we refer to as SAB, is intended to provide meaningful, balanced, and independent reviews of the science conducted and used by the Agency. Its members are selected by the EPA Administrator, and it plays an important role in reviewing everything from the EPA's research budget to individual chemical assessments. This panel is indispensable in critically reviewing the underlying science of virtually all major EPA regulatory activities. That is a tall order in recent years, especially given the fact that the Agency has pursued an overreaching, economically threatening agenda, creating an environment where politics and policies have taken the wheel from unbiased science. This bill contains basic, good government changes and draws upon noncontroversial provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee handbook, the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook, the National Academies' committee composition and conflict of interest policy, and even recommendations from the Science Committee testimony and other outside groups. It has widespread support from groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Gas Association, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Portland Cement Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and I could go on and on with a long list of councils and associations that support this legislation. It makes important clarifying changes to the scope of SAB's purview and institutes commonsense reforms. I would like to emphasize this. You are going to hear this again and again today: commonsense reforms to improve transparency. How can you argue against that? It specifically builds upon the bipartisan agreement made to the SAB in the farm bill. H.R. 1422 would also facilitate meaningful public participation across all of the standing committees. Once again, let me emphasize that: it facilitates meaningful public participation. And let's be clear. The transparency and the public participation concerns addressed in this bill are not without merit. For example, in my own experience, during a hearing in the Science Committee last year, I was alarmed to hear from both SAB members and the chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and a State official testify that EPA's science advisers virtually never respond to public comments and, in many cases, they don't even read these public comments. Imagine the arrogance of a government committee that pretends to seek public comment and promises to consider those comments, and then to learn that they don't even read them, let alone consider what has been said. This bill would change that. This bill also provides clarity to the SAB member selection and disclosure process. Despite an existing requirement that these panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' EPA has systematically excluded State, local, and tribal entities and private sector scientists from serving as advisers. For example, last year EPA announced a new Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel. Even though dozens of people with recent and direct experience with oil and gas technical developments were nominated, the EPA excluded nearly every one of them from serving on the panel. There are also a number of other unsettling Agency trends about how the EPA selects its supposedly independent advisers. For instance, according to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA's chartered SAB and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee have directly received grants from the Agency, and that is only since the year 2000. These advisers served as principal or co- investigators for EPA grants, totaling approximately $140 million. The EPA also frequently chooses panelists whose research is directly or indirectly under review. And finally, in addition, many of the SAB panelists have clearly taken sides or made public pronouncements on issues they are advising about. For example, roughly 40 percent of the current panel members reviewing the science behind upcoming EPA ozone standards have already made statements that the regulations should be more stringent. The issues identified in this bill seem to many as too specific and diving into the weeds, but credible peer review is critical to everything the EPA does. We may not be able to control all the EPA's regulatory overreach, but guaranteeing that there is an independent check whose sole focus is to provide unbiased, independent science is essential to the process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. Could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my comrade.

Mr. STEWART. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle. All of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice that had been conflicted financially. I share that concern. In fact, that was one of the primary reasons that we wrote this bill. This bill, to say it again, seeks for transparency and it seeks for openness. If you are worried about industry experts being stacked on the SABs and providing biased opinion and expertise, I would ask you to give me an example of this. Because I can give you an example of exactly the opposite happening. I will say it once again: 60 percent of the current Members of the SAB have $140 million in direct government grants. Now, that is a clear conflict. And yet once again, we are still willing to work with that. We are not seeking to exclude those members; we are simply seeking for transparency and openness, and for that same standard to be applied to industry experts as well who could help us with their background and their expertise. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. STEWART. Well, once again, I just have to respond to some of the things that the opposition is saying. This is essentially their argument: we think it is okay that 60 percent of SAB members have $140 million in direct government grants, and we think it is okay that those same members are then allowed to provide their own peer review of their own work. That is okay. I think it is very commonsensical to realize there are inherent objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to continue to exist. It is not gutting the EPA, as was claimed, to ask to increase transparency. It is not gutting the EPA to ask for balance. That is all this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), my good friend.

Mr. STEWART. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, there are three things that we should keep in mind. The current content or makeup of the SAB is somewhere between 51 and 52 members because there are some in transition as new members come and go. Of those, let's say, 52, only nine are nonuniversity background, and of those, only five and sometimes six represent industry. The industry experts have much to offer. If you don't think that, say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board that that technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is, and we need to take advantage of that. The second thing I would say is public comment. The American people are smart, and the American people are those that are most affected by some of the standards and the rules that the EPA would suggest. We should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be listened to. Finally, the third thing, we are requesting that 10 percent--a mere 10 percent of these board members come from State, local, or tribal governments. That hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in getting input from lay States and localities. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but before I do, though, I would like to enter into the Record the letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that I mentioned in my previous testimony. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, November 18, 2014. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America's free enterprise system, supports H.R. 1422, the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.'' This bill would help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 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 EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of scientific and technical reviews that EPA relies on to justify its actions. The American public must have confidence that the scientific and technical data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly, the Chamber supports H.R. 1422. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes a number of technical and conforming changes to address revisions to the existing statute that occurred with the passage of the farm bill. I am pleased to have worked with Representative Davis to strengthen the changes to the statute that he was able to secure in passage of the farm bill. This amendment is critical to ensure that the underlying bill can be properly applied to existing statute. Just this morning, the legislation received the support of the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I ask for your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, we have debated these issues throughout the day. I believe that we have made our case. I believe that we have made our case persuasively. I believe our case is complete. This amendment is technical in nature. I believe that the bill itself is common sense. It will lead to good government. It will lead to better government at least. It will lead to better advice and counsel given to the EPA through these reforms of the Science Advisory Board. I urge all Members to support it. I look forward to the vote. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion.