Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the national media's continued crusade against President Trump further demonstrates that they are not mainstream.

A Morning Consult poll found that a majority of Americans believe the media is ``out of touch with everyday Americans.'' Most significantly, 37 percent said they trusted President Trump to tell the truth, while only 29 percent said the media is truthful.

The media's open hostility to the President continues to erode his credibility. A poll by the University of Virginia Center for Politics found that 88 percent of Trump voters agree with him that the media ``is the enemy of the American people.''

Let's hope the media will put aside their bias and give the President fair and objective coverage. It may be the only way for the media to rebuild their credibility.

Mr. Speaker, human history is punctuated by explorations of the world around us. We are a nation of explorers. It is part of our national identity, and finding new planets and looking for evidence of life beyond our Earth fascinates most Americans.

The discovery of life elsewhere in the universe would alter our priorities for space exploration and affect how we view ourselves.

In just the last two decades, we have confirmed the existence of 3,000 exoplanets, planets outside our solar system. Probing the cosmos encourages the next generation of young students to pursue careers in astronomy, astrophysics, and astrobiology.

We must continue to look at the Stars. They offer us a glimpse of the past and hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the biased liberal media have forgotten their responsibility to our democracy: give the American people the facts, don't tell them what to think.

A new report by the Media Research Center shows that coverage of President Trump by the broadcast networks has been 89 percent negative, higher than any other President.

Is it any wonder that half of Americans disapprove of the job President Trump is doing?

The real wonder is that it is not greater, given what the public hears and reads every day.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 55 percent of U.S. adults say that news organizations' stories are ``often inaccurate.'' Only 36 percent say the media get the facts straight.

Commonsense, reasonable Americans would do well to discount the liberal media since they don't provide fair and objective information.

Mr. Speaker, climate change alarmists always predict cataclysmic events that will inevitably occur when the world's temperature rises by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

But all the howling and gnashing of teeth signifies nothing. It is all posturing for their own purposes, including a desire to control people's lives or get another government grant or an academic promotion.

The Paris climate agreement, supported by about 200 countries, would, at best, only prevent an increase in temperature by one-sixth of a degree Celsius.

If the Paris Agreement has little impact on global temperatures, then no regulation proposed by the Obama administration nor any single bill introduced in Congress would have any significant impact on climate change--not one regulation, not one piece of legislation.

So the next time you hear or read about some imminent calamity due to climate change, remember it is just all words and no action.

The real solution isn't more ineffective and costly regulations. It is innovative technology that will make all forms of energy cleaner and less expensive.

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

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

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side? And I would like to know if the other side, the minority, has any more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a former member of the Science Committee, who is still missed, a former chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, and the author of a very similar bill to this in a previous Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 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. 1430, the HONEST Act, gives independent scientists an opportunity to validate the studies the EPA uses to make new regulations. What this bill does not do is roll back the laws that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. It simply requires the EPA to base regulations on science that is publicly available.

This is a nonpartisan bill. A change in administration does not change the need or justification for it. This is the same bill, virtually, introduced in the last administration, and that is evidenced by my introduction of this good-government legislation with my Democratic colleague Henry Cuellar. That shows it is a good, bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and promote a more open and honest Federal Government. We should not be afraid of letting the American people see the data that the EPA or other agencies say justifies their regulations.

So let's vote for an open and honest government and support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, known as LARA, is just over one-page long, but it would prevent the filing of thousands of frivolous lawsuits in Federal courts. These absurd lawsuits cost many innocent families their savings and often ruin their reputations.

Frivolous lawsuits have been filed against a weather channel for failing to accurately predict storms, against television shows people claimed were too scary, against a university that awarded a low grade, and against a high school that dropped a member from the track team.

Lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose under current rules, which allow plaintiffs' lawyers to file frivolous suits without any penalty. Meanwhile, defendants are often faced with years of litigation and substantial attorneys' fees.

Prior to 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions, such as orders to pay for the other side's legal expenses, when lawyers filed frivolous lawsuits. Then, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure branch of the courts, made penalties optional. This needs to be reversed by Congress.

LARA requires lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits to pay attorneys' fees and court costs of innocent defendants. This will serve as a disincentive to file junk lawsuits.

Further, LARA specifically requires that no changes ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.''

So civil rights law would not be affected in any way by LARA, and that might go a long way to reassuring the ranking member's concerns about its impact on civil rights.

Opponents argue that reinstating mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits impedes judicial discretion, but this is false. Under LARA, judges retain the discretion to determine whether or not a claim is frivolous. If a judge determines that a claim is frivolous, then they must award sanctions. This ensures that victims of frivolous lawsuits obtain compensation. But the decision to determine whether a claim is frivolous or not remains with the judge.

The American people are looking for solutions to obvious lawsuit abuse. LARA restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating sanctions for attorneys who are found by a judge to have filed frivolous lawsuits. Though it will not stop all lawsuit abuse, LARA encourages attorneys to think twice before making an innocent party's life miserable.

These attorneys engage in legalized extortion and try to force individuals to settle out of court instead of paying huge legal costs. There is currently no disincentive to deter attorneys from filing frivolous claims. By requiring attorneys who file junk lawsuits to pay the court costs of those they sue, such lawsuits will be discouraged.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing this much-needed legislation to the House floor. I ask my colleagues who oppose frivolous lawsuits and who want to protect innocent Americans from false charges to support the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Judicial Conference, by its own admission, objects to any amendments to the Federal rules it doesn't propose itself, but Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to establish and amend the Federal rules. It also has the duty to address problems with the judicial system that fall within its enumerated powers. Reducing frivolous lawsuits and ensuring that those who face meritless filings are able to receive compensation for losses caused by frivolous claims is a significant improvement to our justice system.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, does a bill that grants the victims of corporate fraud the right to damages create satellite litigation? Of course it doesn't. What it does is create a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered. This bill does just that. It creates a means of guaranteed compensation for a wrong suffered; namely, the wrong of a frivolous lawsuit.

It is the job of judges to apply the law. It is the job of Members of Congress to write the law. We are the people's representatives, and all of us have constituents who have been the victims of frivolous lawsuits. We are responsible for the lack of any redress today for the victims of frivolous lawsuits, and we aim to remedy that today by passing this bill on behalf of the constituents who sent us here. If you deny that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims, then vote against this bill, but if you think the victims of frivolous lawsuits should be entitled to compensation, just like anyone else who proves their legal claims in court, you should support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, a judicial poll was mentioned. But I would point out to all of my colleagues that only one survey was done that consisted mostly of judges who had experience under both the stronger rule with mandatory sanctions. That poll showed overwhelming support for mandatory sanctions. When judges who had experience under both the stronger and weaker versions of rule 11 were polled, they overwhelmingly supported mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits.

The survey of 751 Federal judges found that an overwhelming majority of Federal judges believed, based on their experience under both a weaker and stronger rule 11, that a stronger rule 11 did not impede development of the law: 95 percent; the benefits of the rule outweighed any additional requirement of judicial time: 72 percent; the stronger version of rule 11 had a positive effect on litigation in the Federal courts: 81 percent; and the rule should be retained in its then current form: 80 percent. Incredible.

A 2005 survey was also mentioned. In that survey, only 278 judges responded, as opposed to the 751 who responded to the survey done in 1990. Over half of the judges who responded to the 2005 survey had no experience under the stronger rule 11 because they were appointed to the bench after 1992. So that 2005 survey tells us very little about how judges comparatively view the stronger versus the weaker rule 11.

I would also point out that in the 1990 survey, roughly twice as many responded as in the 2005 survey.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first point out that this bill is being key voted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. It has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, and also endorsed by the Physicians Insurance Association of America.

Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just a page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal Court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits have no basis in law or fact.

The victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. They have to shell out thousands of dollars, endure sleepless nights, and spend time away from their family, work, and customers, just to respond to frivolous pleadings. Few would ever claim that judges should have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of legal wrongs proved in court.

So why should judges have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of frivolous lawsuits who prove in court that the case brought against them was, indeed, frivolous?

A vote against LARA, including a vote for the motion to recommit, is a denial of the fact that victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims. But they are real victims, and they deserve to be guaranteed compensation when they prove in court that the claims against them are frivolous. This bill would do just that, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which allows lawyers who file frivolous claims to escape any sanction.

It is essential that LARA reverse the 1993 amendments to rule 11. The current rule allows those who file frivolous lawsuits to avoid sanctions by withdrawing claims within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been filed. This loophole, which LARA closes, gives unscrupulous lawyers an unlimited number of free passes to file frivolous pleadings with impunity.

Justice Scalia correctly predicted that such amendments would, in fact, encourage frivolous lawsuits. Opposing the 1993 amendments in which the 21-day rule was instated, Justice Scalia wrote:

In my view, those who file frivolous suits in pleadings

should have no safe harbor. The rules should be solicitous of

the abused and not of the abuser. Under the revised rule,

parties will be able to file thoughtless, reckless, and

harassing pleadings, secure in the knowledge that they have

nothing to lose: if objection is raised, they can retreat

without penalty.

LARA would eliminate the free pass lawyers use to file frivolous lawsuits. This amendment would eliminate that free pass that is so costly to innocent Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike the provision for penalties for frivolous lawsuits and, thus, defeat the purpose of the bill.

Today, there is no guarantee that a victim of a frivolous lawsuit will be compensated, even when a court finds that the lawsuit is frivolous. This legislation gives the victims of frivolous lawsuits the ability to receive compensation from those who abuse the legal system. The underlying bill enables innocent Americans to protect

themselves and their families from absolutely absurd lawsuits, which can cost them their reputations and their livelihoods.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize this bill in one sentence, and that is that no reputable attorney is going to have any concerns with this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), has been a champion of civil rights all of his life. I recognize and respect that.

For that reason, I would like to try to reassure him that the base bill already says, as I mentioned in my opening statement:

``Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.''

This provision clearly preserves the right to assert claims under the civil rights laws or the Constitution. I don't know how this language could be more clear.

This amendment would allow frivolous claims to be brought under civil rights laws without any of the penalties required in the base bill. If this amendment were adopted, the bill would invite the filing of frivolous civil rights claims without any penalty whatsoever.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which regrettably would expose innocent Americans to abusive and frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair pointing out that it is improper to impugn the integrity or damage the reputation of the President of the United States or others. I thank the Chair for pointing that out.

Mr. Chairman, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act makes three important changes to rule 11 to limit lawsuit abuse by imposing sanctions for bringing frivolous lawsuits. These changes apply to all cases brought in Federal district courts.

However, this amendment would change that. If this amendment is adopted, the changes to rule 11 made by LARA would not apply to lawsuits brought in relation to whistleblower claims. There is no reason to make this or other exceptions.

The changes made by the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act should apply uniformly throughout the Federal courts. Because this amendment excludes certain cases from the bill's coverage and thereby allows frivolous lawsuits to be filed without any of the penalties required by the bill, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, proponents of this amendment want to allow lawsuits with no basis in law or fact to proceed without penalty if the lawsuit relates to whistleblowers. Think about that. The proponents of this amendment support lawsuits that apparently have no basis in law or fact, and they want those frivolous lawsuits to proceed without penalty.

Let me remind Members what the base bill--which is just one page long--actually does. It makes it mandatory for the victims of frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal court to be compensated for the harm done to them by the filers of frivolous lawsuits. The bill doesn't change the existing standards for determining what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit. So under the bill, mandatory sanctions would only be awarded to victims of frivolous lawsuits when those lawsuits, as determined by the judge, have no basis in law or fact, including cases related to whistleblowers that have no basis in law or fact.

This amendment would allow legally frivolous whistleblower cases to go without penalty and leave their victims uncompensated, so I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Once again, I don't know how any reputable attorney would have any concerns with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space for yielding me time.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 provides bipartisan and bicameral guidance for NASA as we usher in a new era of space exploration.

I support this bill and the direction it establishes for America's space program. S. 442, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on February 17, includes almost all of the policy provisions from the House authorization bills that passed the House in the last Congress with broad bipartisan support. In fact, it authorizes the House's proposed fiscal year 2017 funding level of $19.5 billion.

This bill provides a balanced NASA portfolio across all of the mission directorates. It maintains congressional direction for priority near-term programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the Space Launch System, the Orion crew vehicle, the International Space Station, and the Commercial Crew and Cargo Programs.

NASA's exploration projects are vulnerable to changes in the political landscape. We must have a flexible space program, but not one that is knocked off course. Successfully combining flexibility with constancy of purpose requires thoughtful planning.

This bill directs NASA to create a roadmap for human exploration. An exploration roadmap will help NASA inform Congress and the President, as well as direct the future path and tempo of exploration for decades to come.

This legislation also looks to the future of scientific exploration. It provides support for NASA's Mars 2020 rover, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, and a mission to Europa, Jupiter's icy moon that possibly harbors the building blocks of life. It establishes that one of NASA's fundamental objectives is ``the search for life's origin, evolution, distribution, and future in the universe.''

Toward that end, this legislation directs the NASA Administrator to develop both an exoplanet exploration strategy and an astrobiology strategy within 18 months after the bill is signed into law. It also directs the NASA Administrator to report on how the Administration can expand collaborative partnerships for these scientific endeavors.

Just 2 weeks ago, NASA announced that it had confirmed the existence of

seven planets around a nearby star, three of which are in the ``habitable zone.'' This bill builds upon these awe-inspiring discoveries and will help ``unlock the mysteries of space,'' as President Trump said in his inaugural address.

Part of achieving success in space exploration is making sure that NASA is not burdened with funding other agency missions. For example, there are 17 agencies with responsibility for studying climate change, but only 1 agency, NASA, is responsible for space exploration. This bill directs the NASA Administrator to seek reimbursement whenever responsibilities are transferred to NASA from another agency or when NASA funds another agency's activities.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleague and Texas friend Dr. Brian Babin, the chairman of the Space Subcommittee, for his work on the TREAT Astronauts Act, which is included in this authorization. Chairman Babin's legislation gives NASA the ability to care for our astronauts and enhance our understanding of the effects of spaceflight on the human body.

I would also like to thank the Science, Space, and Technology Committee staff for their years of effort on this bill, especially the Space Subcommittee director, Tom Hammond, who has worked diligently to ensure that this bill became a reality. I also recognize the minority staff who were essential to the process as well.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, from Investor's Business Daily: ``The mainstream media's open hostility to President Trump may be starting to backfire, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. The poll found that 55 percent of the public says they have grown `weary from the media's persistently negative coverage of President Trump.' A roughly equal share, 54 percent, also believe that the news media `has assumed the role of the opposition party, constantly opposing the president and his policies at every turn.'''

``The results are understandable, given the unusually hostile relationship the press has with Trump.

``A study by the nonpartisan group Media Tenor found that only 3 percent of network news stories in the first month of the Trump administration could be described as positive.''

``The poll found that 57 percent back Trump's plan to hire 10,000 more immigration agents; 58 percent support the deportation of illegal immigrants charged with a crime, even if they haven't been convicted; and 53 percent back Trump's call to withhold federal aid to `sanctuary cities.'''

``Meanwhile, 42 percent say Trump is providing strong leadership for the country, which is higher than the 40 percent Obama got last October.''

Madam Speaker, President Trump hit a home run in the State of the Union Address last night. As he said, the way to renew the American spirit is to put Americans first--their jobs, their safety, their education, and their health. He also focused on border security. The rule of law will stop drugs and protect American jobs and lives.

A recent poll found that, by a 2-to-1 ratio, voters feel that the President has kept his promises to the American people. Another poll revealed that 78 percent of Americans had a positive response to President Trump's State of the Union speech. No doubt Americans will rally behind him and support his efforts to put Americans first.

President Trump's words will be long remembered: ``My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.''