No one can accuse Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of being a do-nothing legislator.
As chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Smith has used his newly granted subpoena power to investigate two state attorneys general, eight private science groups and even the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration over climate change. He also has recently worked with Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
But his main focus continues to be climate change, and the controversial investigations have made him a boogeyman for environmentalists and Democrats but celebrated among his conservative colleagues.
His investigation of the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general in particular have rankled many. Smith has subpoenaed them for documents and communications related to their investigations of Exxon Mobil and whether the oil giant defrauded its investors by possibly burying knowledge of global warming. The attorneys general also subpoenaed groups that received funding from Exxon Mobil for scientific research, and Smith believes those subpoenas could have a chilling effect.
“Clearly to us this was an effort to intimidate, to try and get them to back off the research they were doing that didn’t agree with the government’s political agenda,” Smith said, “and might well have a dampening effect on the research and development funding from the federal government.”
It’s all part of the 15-term congressman’s plan to elevate his committee’s profile through active investigations and challenging the Obama administration’s environmental policies at every turn.
While Smith issued the subpoenas in July, the fight over whether the attorneys general will comply is just beginning. Smith says he’s not afraid to press his subpoenas all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The Texas Republican clearly wasn’t worried about taking the unprecedented action of issuing subpoenas to the top lawmakers in two states. He’s not overly concerned about jailing them for contempt if they don’t comply, either.
“I don’t know if any attorneys general have been held in contempt by Congress before,” he said. “But, again, if they don’t give us the information to which we are entitled, we have no choice if we want to fulfill our obligations.”
Smith sat down with the Washington Examiner this week to discuss his investigation and how he sees his committee’s role in Congress changing. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Washington Examiner: Why did you decide to start investigating these attorneys general?
Smith: First of all, it came to our attention what the attorneys general and what the environmental groups were doing, particularly the scope of their investigation. You’re talking about a couple hundred maybe nonprofit orgs, companies and individuals. Clearly to us this was an effort to intimidate, to try and get them to back off the research they were doing that didn’t agree with the government’s political agenda and might well have a dampening effect on the research and development funding from the federal government.
It concerns me in part because I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about climate change, legitimate questions. I don’t think it’s an open and shut case as to how much climate change is due to human-caused emissions. I think that some human emissions have some impact, but when I hear so-called climate scientists talk about they’re absolutely sure that it’s 90 percent human-made emissions that cause climate change or they can tell me exactly what the climate is going to be in 500 years, that kind of exaggeration makes me think they have no case. Now, that’s just me personally.
We saw the investigation going on, we thought this was going to have a chilling impact on the money [climate science doubting scientists] would get from the federal government in order to conduct research, might have an impact on their even deciding to do this kind of research. That got our attention and we want to try and level the playing field to make sure they weren’t intimidated and to try and find out to what extent there was a coordinated effort among the attorneys general, among the environmental groups and other individuals to try to stifle what I thought was this legitimate scientific inquiry.
An important point to make is, despite what a couple of the AGs say, we’re not trying to stop their investigations. They’re entitled to investigate anything they want to. They’re state officials. We want to know the consequences, the impact, of those investigations on scientific inquiry and federal research. I am 100 percent sure we will win if we ever have to go to the Supreme Court. Constitutional experts … make us totally confident we would win in work, but that’s a long process. Meanwhile, by the way, I think we’re winning in the court of public opinion. … I brought it up, that USA Today poll, which was pretty generic and didn’t mention me by name but it well described the issue at hand and the choice, 65-15 (against the attorneys generals’ investigation). I’ve never been on the right side of a 65-15 split before, I don’t think, so that kind of underlies why we’re doing what we’re doing.
Examiner: What are the next steps?
Smith: Where we are, we feel like have a very strong foundation to prove we are constitutionally entitled to do exactly what we’re doing. Not only entitled to it, but there’s a certain responsibility for Congress to conduct oversight and that is what we’re in fact doing and I think doing very well. As far as next steps go, we’re going to do everything we can to fulfill our obligations and conduct that oversight and hold both state officials and organizations accountable for their actions because of their intent here to stifle that legitimate scientific inquiry. We will be asking them to come in for depositions and interviewing them.
Examiner: Do you see court action coming in the Supreme Court?
Smith: That’s down the line, but I certainly consider that to be an option, and I don’t hesitate to take that option if it’s necessary. I still hope that the attorneys general and other organizations, I still hope that they’ll cooperate and they’ll give us the information we want. As I said, what do they have to hide, why won’t they give it to us? Clearly, we’re starting to pick up on some bits of information that do show a collusion among the attorneys general and other organization to do exactly what we’re worried about.
The next steps will be the depositions that I mentioned, if possibly something for us to consider is holding them in contempt, which would be a serious step to take. But, it’s again, one that might be necessary. I don’t know if any attorneys general have been held in contempt by Congress before but, again, if they don’t give us the information to which we are entitled, we have no choice if we want to fulfill our obligations.
Examiner: How would you describe the negotiations between Congress and these groups and the attorneys general about what to turn over?
Smith: We have gone way beyond what we’re required to do as far as open up negotiations, talk to them, reach out to them, make dozens of calls to all these different individuals and organizations trying to see if they won’t cooperate, if they won’t at least give us some information and see where that takes us. So far, they have been totally non-responsive and uncooperative and that’s why they shouldn’t be surprised that we take the steps that we do.
Examiner: A lot of your Democratic colleagues say this investigation is motivated by your donors in the fossil fuel industry. What do you say to those critics?
Smith: I’ve never figured out, it’s nice to read what they’ve contributed because I don’t pay any attention to it one way or another. Over a two-year cycle, I get contributions close to $1 million, and they’re a small fraction of what I get. I notice that the total they come up with was a couple hundred thousand dollars over 30 years, so that’s a small fraction of my contributions.
It obviously has no impact on me one way or the other. I get contributions from lots and lots of people. It’s not that in this case, not only do I pay no attention to that but I haven’t had a single conversation with Exxon and neither I nor any other member is influenced by their contributions. I guess those are for Democrats to grasp at straws and that’s what it is.
Examiner: Between this investigation, the NOAA investigation last year, you had a lot of hearings about the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement, how do you see the committee’s role changing in Congress?
Smith: I don’t think you’re going to ever see the phrase “do-nothing Congress” and “the science committee” in the same sentence. I don’t mind that. That’s actually part of the intent when I sought to be chairman of the science committee and made my presentation to the Republican Steering Committee. I made a point of saying I wanted to be chairman to revitalize the committee. I wanted to raise the profile, I wanted to make it of more interest to members, I wanted to be more active in our investigations, more active in our oversight and I think we’ve achieved a lot of that.
Indicative of that, for example, is the fact that before I became chairman we always had more vacancies than we had people who wanted to serve on the committee. In the two times I’ve been chairman, we’ve actually had more members of Congress seek to be on the committee than we’ve had vacancies for. John Boehner said before I became chairman a second time this last year, he said it was the first time in 20 years that had been the case. I go to some effort to recruit, I check out the bios of all the new members and I’d say that a third to a half have something in their backgrounds or something in their interests, or there’s something about their district, that would make a good connection to the science committee.
Examiner: How would you describe your relationship with the Democrats on the committee? Hearings seem well attended by Republicans but not so much on the other side of the dais.
Smith: We have great attendance. I’m really gratified by the Republican attendance, in fact I write them letters afterward and thank them for the coming. I think in the future, we’re going to copy all the people who didn’t come so they see their absence was noted [laughs]. To me it shows a genuine interest in what we’re doing and it’s gratifying as chairman to have that kind of turnout. We have outstanding attendance by the Republicans.
Examiner: Do you wish there would be more Democrats who would come?
Smith: I wish there were fewer actually [laughs]. That deserves a serious answer. The more members that are engaged the better.
Examiner: I’m assuming you’re planning on running next term to be chairman.
Smith: You know, it really depends on what offer Mr. Trump might make me. No, no, that’s not true, I’m planning to stay right here. I’m hoping to stay right where I am.
Examiner: What would your priorities be as chairman next term?
Smith: Well, it depends on who’s president and what the administration tries to do. This administration came in promising to be the most transparent in history, which is demonstrably false. In fact, you have any number of the members of the media complaining about the lack of transparency and how few Freedom of Information Act requests are granted and almost an unwillingness to come clean on any number of issues. This administration has been ripe for investigation, but a new administration, we’ll have to see what direction they go. So, we’ll have to see who’s in office and that will determine what we do.
