David Schweikert: “I don't really know the gentleman from Virginia, but you can hear in the tone of his voice he is truly well- meaning and…”

“I don't really know the gentleman from Virginia, but you can hear in the tone of his voice he is truly well- meaning and cares about his State and his population. If you actually read this motion to recommit, things in here, such as best available science, are obvious. If you actually read the three pages of the legislation, that is the obvious part. For many of us--and being sort of the original previous generation author of the bill--that was our goal. But does anyone see sort of the intellectual duplicity when, on one hand, you say proprietary science, and then--the best available science, but other science can't test, stress, analyze, bounce, conflate, model the proprietary science, because it is proprietary, with the best available and other datasets? You can't have both. If you are going to try to make public policy in a world with functionally secret, proprietary science data that is sold--actually, let's be brutally honest here for a moment. This stuff is sold to the EPA. One of the reasons some of the groups that have been listed off oppose this legislation is they make money selling the data, and then they make it so you can't actually look at the datasets underneath and test it. How does that lead us to knowing that we are taking care of our brothers and sisters out there? How does that lead us to actually knowing we are doing it the best possible, most rational way and that our rules, our mechanics are correct?…”