Lamar Smith: “I do thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, for her amendment, but I must oppose it. This amendment would…”

“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.…”