Lamar Smith

Lamar S. Smith


Lamar Smith earned a a bachelor's degree in 1969 at Yale University and a law degree in 1975 at Southern Methodist University School of Law. [1]


Representative Lamar S. Smith is a U.S. Republican Representative for Texas's 21st congressional district and Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology[2]

After leaving Yale University with a law degree, Smith worked as a business writer for the Christian Science Monitor. He was first elected chairman of the Bexar County Republican Party in 1978. He was elected to the Texas House in 1981. He was elected a Bexar County commissioner in 1982 and was re-elected in 1984. Smith was first elected to the U.S. House in 1986. Smith is known for introducing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2011. The bill received opposition from internet freedom advocacy groups and web companies, and was cancelled in 2012. [1], [3]

As chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith has repeatedly fought against inquiries into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change (#ExxonKnew). Smith has sent letters to several environmental groups and U.S. attorneys general demanding communications regarding their investigations. [4]

Before his appointment to chair the House Science Committee in 2012, Smith had a history of climate change denial. In 2009, after the “Climategate” hacking of climate scientists' emails from a server at the University of East Anglia, Smith took to the House floor to attack scientists and journalists “determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming.” [5]

In addition to defending ExxonMobil, Lamar Smith has repeatedly attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and has also fought against the NOAA (National Atmospheric Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) over a study it published showing that climate change had not paused or slowed down, counter to what many climate change deniers have claimed. [6]

The Guardian describes Lamar Smith as a “climate scientist witch hunter.” Smith's fellow Committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said that during the two years and ten months Smith had served as chair (as of November 2015), the Committee has issued more subpoenas than it had in its entire 54-year history prior.  She also noted that Smith had handed over public health data to a researcher with ties to “Big Tobacco” in the past, which says says is “representative of a disturbing pattern.” [7]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics' database, Rep. Smith has received $684,947 from the oil and gas industry since 1998 — making oil and gas his most generous industry contributor throughout his career.  [8]

Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money database shows that Smith has taken $24,770 campaign contributions from Exxon since 1999.  [9][4]

Stance on Climate Change

April, 2015

“Both the president and Mr. Kerry cited rapidly warming global temperatures and ever-more-severe storms caused by climate change as reasons for urgent action.

Given that for the past decade and a half global-temperature increases have been negligible, and that the worsening-storms scenario has been widely debunked, the pronouncements from the Obama administration sound more like scare tactics than fact-based declarations.

[…] Climate alarmists have failed to explain the lack of global warming over the past 15 years. They simply keep adjusting their malfunctioning climate models to push the supposedly looming disaster further into the future.” [10]

December, 2012

I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing.” [11]

Key Quotes

December 8, 2016

“Make no mistake, while President Obama may soon leave the Oval Office, the environmental extremists who fight against American energy are here to stay. They are determined to stop Americans from using reliable and affordable power. They would rather see America keep our natural resources, as they say, in the ground.” [45]

The science is clear and overwhelming but not in the way the president says. For example, statements by President Obama and others continually attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change. These claims are, of course, unfounded. […] The fact is there is little evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.” [45]

I look forward to working with the new president, president-elect Trump to restore transparency and reshape the EPA into an accountable science-focused agency dedicated to a core mission of protecting our environment.” [45]

July, 2016

“It is regrettable that two state attorneys general and several organizations continue to threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change. The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and invalid regarding climate change. Attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists' rights to free speech.” [12]

February, 2016

 “The president’s Paris pledge will increase electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth. Congress has repeatedly rejected the president’s extreme climate agenda. The president’s climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the American people and would produce no substantive environmental benefits.” [13]

Speaking about the proposed NASA budget, which would increase spending for Earth Sciences (including climate change research): [42]

”[…]this proposal shrinks space exploration priorities within NASA’s budget, it disproportionately increases Earth Science accounts to more than $2 billion – a seventy percent increase since 2007. This imbalanced proposal continues to tie our astronauts’ feet to the ground and makes a Mars mission all but impossible. This is not the proposal of an administration that is serious about maintaining America’s leadership in space.”

December, 2015

“This week, President Obama is in Paris trying to negotiate climate change regulations. His pledge to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 28 percent in the next 10 years is an attempt to bypass Congress and the American people. But worse, his plan to get us there, the EPA’s Power Plan, will do a world of harm to Americans while doing almost nothing to impact climate change.” [14]

September, 2014

Lamar Smith made statements at a hearing on the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan and proposed EPA regulations on power plants:

America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake.  The only economy the EPA’s plan will help is that of our competitors.” [15]


Speaking after the “Climategate” hacking of climate scientists' emails from a server at the University of East Anglia:

We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data. But for two weeks, none of the networks gave the scandal any coverage on their evening news programs. And when they finally did cover it, their reporting was largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists. The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study. The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.” [5]

Key Deeds

December 8, 2016

Lamar Smith was a speaker at the “At the Crossroads III Energy and Climate Summit,” an event co-hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). The event was billed as “the premier energy-and-climate policy event in America,” and attracted a range of prominent climate change deniers as well as a range of names connected to Donald Trump and his transition team. Choice quotes and video below.[43]

“Make no mistake, while President Obama may soon leave the Oval Office, the environmental extremists who fight against American energy are here to stay. They are determined to stop Americans from using reliable and affordable power. They would rather see America keep our natural resources, as they say, in the ground.” [11:20]

Time and again, EPA officials have dismissed America’s right to know and have advanced expensive regulations without releasing the data they used to justify these burdensome regulations.” [13:07]

This power plan will cost billions of dollars, cause financial hardship for American families and diminish the competitiveness of American industry around the world with no significant benefit. In other words, it’s all all pain no gain.” [13:45]

“[H]eavy-handed regulations and arbitrary emission targets will do lasting damage to our economy and even the Obama administration admits that the rule will have little or no impact on global temperature.” [13:59]

Regulations should be based on sound science, not science fiction.” [14:19]

If all hundred and ninety-one, whatever it is, 87, 90, countries completely implemented the agreement that they submitted and these agreements were in effect the next 85 years it would only prevent a temperature rise of 1/6th of one degree Celsius.” [15:02]

Regulatory mandates and picking winners and losers in the energy marketplace only benefit this administration and extreme environmental activists. It is time to put an end to regulations that hurt the American people.” [15:52]

The science is clear and overwhelming but not in the way the president says. For example, statements by President Obama and others continually attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change. These claims are, of course, unfounded.” [16:12]

The fact is there is little evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.” [16:28]

The EPA ignore the facts and advance climate regulations, and put limits on the use of innovative technologies like hydraulic fracturing that could help us safely develop our natural resources.” [17:11]

And I look forward to working with the new president, president-elect Trump to restore transparency and reshape the EPA into an accountable science-focused agency dedicated to a core mission of protecting our environment.”  [18:57]

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The HillDomenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [44]

Speakers included:

October 17, 2016

The San Antonio Express-News editorial board announced that it would revoke its support for Lamar Smith's re-election, despite having supported him in years prior. They cite one of their primary reasons as Smith's “bullying” on the climate change issue: [41]

“We’ve argued that Smith’s undeniably conservative credentials have been a good fit for the 21st Congressional District. However, Smith’s actions have developed more transparently this last term into an issue that goes beyond the boundaries of his district.

A particular issue is his abuse of his position as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Specifically, it is his bullying on the issue of climate change that should concern all Americans. […]

Technically, Smith acknowledges human impact on climate change, but he consistently diminishes its role and essentially says dire climate predictions are exaggerated.” [41]

The paper notes that “In fact, there is broad and deep consensus in the climate science community that man’s role in global warming is substantive and that left unaddressed, this portends disastrous consequences.” [41]

September 29, 2016

Lamar Smith expanded his probe of environmental groups and attorneys general to include the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Smith sent a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White requesting information the SEC’s investigation into Exxon, including all internal SEC communications regarding the SEC's decision to investigate the oil company. [16], [17]

“The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (the Committee) is troubled by the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) recently announced investigation of Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon)” the letter reads. “It appears from press accounts that the SEC's investigative actions, which date back to at least August of this year, are couched in concerns related to the science of climate change. […] the AG's efforts, characterized variously as a 'witch hunt' and 'fool's errand,' an 'abuse of powers,' 'pathetic,' a 'schtick,' 7 and an 'uphill battle,' have failed to uncover any indicia of wrongdoing by Exxon. This raises questions as to why the SEC would assume the mantle of the New York AG's fruitless investigation.”

An ExxonMobil company spokesperson, Alan Jefferson, told CNBC:

The SEC is the appropriate entity to examine issues related to impairment, reserves, and other communications important to investors.

We are fully complying with the SEC request for information and are confident our financial reporting meets all legal and accounting requirements.” [18]

September 14, 2016

Attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts both refused to turn over information subpoenaed by Lamar Smith in July. This prompted Smith to announce a September 14 hearing to “affirm” that House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, which he chairs, had the legal authority to issue such subpoenas. The issue in question is whether a Congressional committee has subpoena power over state attorneys general and non-profit advocacy organizations. [19]

View the hearing below: [20]

The inciting subpoena was called “an unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement 'investigations or potential prosecutions'” by Leslie Dubeck, an attorney in the Office of the New York State Attorney General. [21]

Desmog reports that two of the three lawyers that Lamar Smith called in for support had direct ties to same Exxon-funded groups that have been pushing against climate change action. [22]

In addition to the subpoenas sent to the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, Rep. Smith issued subpoenas to eight non-profit advocacy organizations, foundations and a private law firm that have drawn attention to what Exxon knew about climate science and when the company knew it. [22]

The Union of Concerned Scientists, one organisation which received such a subpoena, offered to meet with the Committee but had refused to turn over internal records. Their meeting request was refused.

From the outset, Chairman Smith has overstepped his authority with this investigation,” said USC President Ken Kimmell. “He has consistently mischaracterized our work in repeated, convoluted attempts to justify his efforts. It is telling that after issuing broad, unilateral subpoenas, he is now holding a hearing to figure out if his actions are legitimate…We will continue to stand firm against this abuse of power and defend our First Amendment rights.”

However Chairman Smith stacks this hearing with friendly witnesses, it's clear that he's on shaky legal ground,” Kimmell continued. [22]

Lamar Smith's witness include Ronald Rotunda, who has connections to both the Cato Institute (visiting legal scholar in 2000) and the Heartland Institute where he is a Policy Expert. His second witness is Elizabeth Foley who has ties to the Cato Institute, the James Madison Institute, and the Federalist Society. [22]

The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 directly from Exxon since 1998, including $140,000 in grants that were earmarked for climate change work. The Cato Institute was co-founded by oil and gas billionaire Charles Koch, and also receives funding from various Koch affiliated organizations, including the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation. The James Madison Institute is funded in part by the Donors Capital Fund, a supporting affiliate of Donors Trust for donors of more than $1 million. The Donors funds are advertised as a way for donors to remain hidden when “funding sensitive or controversial issues.”  [22]

The Federalist Society, an influential conservative group that has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from other groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation,” a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition.”  [22]

July 13, 2016

Escalating his opposition to recent probes of Exxonmobil over what the company knew about climate change, Rep. Lamar Smith and several Republican colleagues issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general and nongovernmental advocacy groups, InsideClimate News reports. [12], [23]

“It is regrettable that two state attorneys general and several organizations continue to threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change,” Smith said during a press conference on Capital Hill. “The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and invalid regarding climate change. Attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists' rights to free speech.” [12]

Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists  among the groups named by Smith, called the subpoenas an abuse of power:

“By attempting to interfere with the attorneys general investigations, Chairman Smith directly undermines efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable for misrepresenting climate science,” Kimmell said. “It's also just plain wrong to investigate a nonprofit for doing its job—in this case, providing public officials with science and evidence to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for deception on climate change.”

Exxon has been under investigation by a coalition of 17 attorneys general since earlier in 2016, following the publication of an investigative series by InsideClimate News which revealed Exxon had conducted its own research on climate change in the 1970s. (A following Desmog investigation found similar information from an Exxon subsidiary.) [24], [25][26]

Greenpeace and 350,org, among the groups targeted by Smith, responded to the subpoena threat with their own letter, reports The Hill: [27]

The requests served upon Greenpeace and simply cannot be squared with the Committee’s stated concerns regarding freedom of speech and scientific inquiry,” the groups wrote.

The Committee’s requests violate basic First Amendment protections, fall outside the proper jurisdiction of the Committee, and are impermissibly vague, overbroad, and burdensome. For these reasons, Greenpeace and respectfully refuse to comply with the Committee’s requests.” [27]

The add that they would be interested in the panel's own interaction with Exxon, and question whether members may have met privately with representative sof the oil company and whether they may have accepted funding from them or related organizations:

We would like to know exactly how much money Exxon, other fossil fuel companies, and allied nonprofits and think tanks have given members of the House Science Committee,” Annie Leonard, Greenpeace’s executive director, said in a statement. “We would also love Rep. Smith to make public all communications between members of the Committee and those same groups.” [27]

February 22, 2016

As part of his ongoing fight to obtain documents from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Lamar Smith sent another letter demanding documents relating to the NOAA's analysis of global temperature data. This was after the NOAA already handed over 301 pages worth of emails regarding a study published in 2015 in the journal Science. “There apparently wasn’t anything juicy in those e-mails, however, because Rep. Smith is now asking for a great deal more,” Ars Technica reports. [28]

Rep. Smith cites a letter sent to him by “325 scientists, engineers, economists, and other scholars raising serious inquiries about the adherence of NOAA to [Office of Management and Budget] guidelines established under the Data Quality Act.” [28]

The '300 scientists' letter (PDF) had been circulated in “climate 'skeptic' circles' by the George C. Marshall Institute's chairman William Happer and includes names of many well-document climate change deniers.

February 2, 2016

Lamar Smith's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to “examine the various scientific, economic and other policy issues” following the Paris Climate Agreement where President Obama pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” [13]

The president’s climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the American people and would produce no substantive environmental benefits,” Smith said. Video of Smith's full statement below. [13]

Witnesses included noted climate change skeptic John Christy as well as Steve Eule of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation. Notably, the Heritage Foundation has received at least $585,000 from ExxonMobil, while the Chamber of Commerce has received millions from large corporations like Dow Chemical and American Electric Power[13]

November 20, 2015

Lamar Smith was a speaker at the “At the Crossroads Energy & Climate Policy Summit” hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Smith's speech was titled “Confronting EPA's Shredding of Science and the Constitution” (Video below). [29]

The event attracted a number of notable climate change deniers including:

October 13, 2015

Lamar Smith demanded documents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regarding a study it published showing that climate change had not paused or slowed down, counter to what many climate change deniers have claimed. [6]

The subpoenas ordered NOAA to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study. The Washington Post reports the NOAA told the committee that the study's finding were publicly available and met with the panel's staff to go over the results, but did not comply with the subpoenas. [30]

Your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms,” Smith wrote. [30]

The chief society of meteorologists replied to Lamar Smith, saying his demands “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research. [30]

Smith's fellow Committee member, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), wrote a critical letter of Smith's recent actions. She described his subpoena to the NOAA as “furthering a fishing expedition, rather than engaged in focused oversight with a legitimate goal in mind.” [31]

She notes that prior to Smith's subpoena, the Committee had already made three written requests for information on a peer-reviewed study by Thomas Karl, NOAA“s Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information. NOAA had also responded twice to those requests, and through informal staff communications. They also engaged in a second briefing to Majority staff (Minority members were not invited) on October 19. A key excerpt from Johnson's letter below (emphasis added): [31]

“It is important to note what is and what is not contained in this history of requests and responses. Your requests repeatedly asked for data and methodologies used in the study, and also requested that this information be made publically available. NOAA, through its two response letters, pointed the Committee to publically accessible locations where all of the underlying data and methodologies can be accessed. Moreover, NOAA attempted to explain certain aspects of the methodology about which the Majority was apparently confused.

However, obtaining all of the data and methods used in this study seemingly was not enough for the Majority. You also demanded internal communications by NOAA scientists regarding their scientific research. NOAA, rightfully, has been reluctant to waste their time and resources, not to mention break confidence with their superb research scientists by responding to this demand.

In your various demand letters you noted that the scientific study in question was of some consequence, and could potentially have an effect on policy decisions. However, it should be emphasized that the issue in question is a scientific research study, not a policy decision by a Federal agency. As such, this is not an area of delegated legislative authority by Congress to the Executive (unless you are proposing that Congress should somehow legislatively overrule peer-reviewed scientific findings). Moreover, in none of the letters do you allege any scientific misconduct, abuse of discretion, or fraud. In sum, NOAA has provided all the information necessary for the Committee to understand the scientific process at play. You have not articulated a legitimate need for anything beyond what NOAA has already provided.” [31]

September 9, 2015

Lamar Smith wrote an Op-Ed at The Hill titled “Climate change: Seven indisputable facts” where he claims that “there are more questions about climate change than there are answers.” [32]

Smith contends there has been a writes that “even the most advanced climate models all failed to predict the lack of warming the Earth has experienced over the last 18 years.  But the president and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to let facts get in the way of their determination to impose greater government control over the lives of the American people.” [32]

In his article, Smith lists seven so-called “Irrefutable facts about climate change that are ignored because they do not fit into the alarmists’ scare tactics.”  [32]

Skeptical Science lists refutations to many of Smith's so-called “irrefutable facts” including his claims that global warming is merely part of a natural cycle, that there is no link between extreme weather and climate change, and that carbon dioxide is only a trace greenhouse gas.

August 13, 2014

Lamar Smith sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy, contending that the EPA has “hidden the truth from the American people.” [33]

Credible analysis is critical to a well-informed debate concerning climate change and energy policy choices now before American people,” the letter reads. “EPA’s incomplete modeling disregards a number of technical, regulatory, and economic realities. Americans deserve the bottom line: what does it cost and what will we get for the money?” [34]

June 23, 2014

Lamar Smith received a letter of support for H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act. According to the letter, signed by a number of prominent climate change deniers, the Act would push the EPA to be “open to public and scientific scrutiny.” [35]

Notable signatories included: [35]

September, 2013

Desmog reports that Lamar Smith was “enraged” that the EPA was not complying with a subpoena that his committee issued requiring them to hand over all documents and studies relating to standards issued by the EPA. Smith wrote that the “EPA has failed to comply with its obligations under the subpoena” and “currently stands in default,” [36], [37]

According to Smith, this information is vital for the public, as the safety standards that it spurs cost the public “trillions of dollars,” as he wrote in a letter to the EPA. Desmog notes that Smith never specifies how he came up with that figure, and research shows that regulations put in place by the EPA actually save taxpayers much more money than they cost.  Smith’s letter has given the agency until September 16th to hand over the documents. [38]


According to Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money database Lamar Smith has received at least $554,295 from either the oil or coal industries between 1999 and 2016. Rep. Smith has taken $24,770 in campaign contributions from Exxon over his career, with $17,500 of that coming in the last five years. [9] puts Lamar Smith's career total from the Oil and Gas Industry at $679,947. [8]

His top four contributors are Valero Energy, Koch Industries, Nustar Energy, and ExxonMobil. [9]

View the summary below, or view the attached spreadsheet for full details on Lamar Smith's industry funding (.xlsx).

Company Oil Funding Coal Funding Total
Valero Energy $70,450 $0 $70,450
Koch Industries $46,250 $0 $46,250
Nustar Energy $41,500 $0 $41,500
Exxon Mobil $24,770 $0 $24,770
Tesoro Petroleum $24,000 $0 $24,000
Energy Future Holdings Corp $2,250 $18,000 $20,250
WB Osborn Oil $19,900 $0 $19,900
Petroleum Engineer $18,950 $0 $18,950
Marathon Petroleum $18,500 $0 $18,500
Pioneer Drilling $16,050 $0 $16,050
Energy Transfer Equity $14,800 $0 $14,800
Oil Co $14,000 $0 $14,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers $13,500 $0 $13,500
Tetco $12,800 $0 $12,800
Concord Oil $9,025 $0 $9,025
Oil/Rancher $8,500 $0 $8,500
Energy XXI $7,500 $0 $7,500
Kinder Morgan Inc $7,500 $0 $7,500
Barrett Brothers Oil & Gas $7,250 $0 $7,250
Lucas Petroleum Group $6,550 $0 $6,550
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $0 $6,500 $6,500
Halliburton Co $6,000 $0 $6,250
Chevron Corp $6,000 $0 $6,000
Oil & Gas $5,900 $0 $5,900
Delray Oil $5,600 $0 $5,600
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers $5,500 $0 $5,500
Chesapeake Energy $5,500 $0 $5,500
Phillips 66 $5,500 $0 $5,500
Falcon Seaboard $5,400 $0 $5,400
Bengal Energy $4,900 $0 $4,900
ConocoPhillips $4,500 $0 $4,500
Osborn Heirs Co $4,450 $0 $4,450
MJ Harvey Oil & Gas $4,000 $0 $4,000
Centerpoint Energy, Inc $0 $4,000 $4,000
Dan A Hughes Co $3,650 $0 $3,650
KBR Inc $0 $0 $3,500
American Petroleum Institute $3,500 $0 $3,500
Independent Petroleum Assn of America $3,000 $0 $3,000
Pinnacle West Capital $0 $2,500 $2,500
Hurd Enterprises $2,500 $0 $2,500
French Oil $2,250 $0 $2,250
Petroleum Landman $2,000 $0 $2,000
Wagner & Brown $2,000 $0 $2,000
Occidental Petroleum $2,000 $0 $2,000
Earle M Craig Jr Corp $2,000 $0 $2,000
Brigham Resources $2,000 $0 $2,000
American Electric Power $0 $2,000 $2,000
Oil Investor $2,000 $0 $2,000
Oil Producer $2,000 $0 $2,000
MJH Inc $2,000 $0 $2,000
JR Butler & Co $1,750 $0 $1,750
Venus Oil $1,750 $0 $1,750
Gas Station Operator $1,700 $0 $1,700
Independent Oil Producer $1,600 $0 $1,600
Bracken Enterprises $1,500 $0 $1,500
HollyFrontier Corp $1,500 $0 $1,500
Holliman Oil Corp $1,500 $0 $1,500
Anderson Oil & Gas $1,000 $0 $1,000
Pure Resources Inc $1,000 $0 $1,000
American Gas Assn $1,000 $0 $1,000
Oil & Gas Operations $1,000 $0 $1,000
Newfield Exploration Co $1,000 $0 $1,000
Oil & Gas Producer $1,000 $0 $1,000
National Ocean Industries Assn $1,000 $0 $1,000
King Ranch $1,000 $0 $1,000
Pitts Oil $1,000 $0 $1,000
Beecherl Companies $1,000 $0 $1,000
San Antonio Gas & Oil $1,000 $0 $1,000
Engie $1,000 $0 $1,000
Marathon Oil $1,000 $0 $1,000
Peabody Energy $0 $1,000 $1,000
Atmos Energy $1,000 $0 $1,000
Gtm Corp $1,000 $0 $1,000
Oil & Gas Investor $800 $0 $800
Discovery Operating $750 $0 $750
Mission Gas Co $600 $0 $600
Oil Business $600 $0 $600
Oil & Gas Investments $600 $0 $600
Oil/Gas/Ranching $600 $0 $600
Three Span Oil & Gas $550 $0 $550
Statoil $500 $0 $500
Oil & Gas Developer $500 $0 $500
Enbridge $500 $0 $500
Oil & Gas & Investments $500 $0 $500
National Fuel Gas $500 $0 $500
Caraway Operating $500 $0 $500
P2 Energy Solutions $500 $0 $500
Coates Energy $500 $0 $500
National Stripper Well Assn $500 $0 $500
Oceaneering $500 $0 $500
Royal Dutch Shell $500 $0 $500
Enron Corp $500 $0 $500
Williams Oil $450 $0 $450
Cap Rock Energy $350 $0 $350
Mission Gas $300 $0 $300
Del Ray Oil Co $250 $0 $250
Tom Brown Inc $250 $0 $250
Dameron Petroleum $250 $0 $250
Richmond Drilling $250 $0 $250
Drilling Supervisor $250 $0 $250
Hanlet Petroleum $250 $0 $250
Rio Grande Inc $200 $0 $200
Boyd & McWilliams Energy $200 $0 $200
Panhandle Producing $200 $0 $200
Oil/Investments/Ranching $200 $0 $200
Rancher/Oil $150 $0 $150
Axeon LLC -$2,000 $0 -$2,000
Grand Total $516,545 $34,000 $554,295


Sponsored Bills

Some notable bills that Lamar Smith has sponsored include the following (See a full list here): [40]

H.R. 3293: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Jul 29, 2015
Passed House: Feb 10, 2016

H.R. 1030: Secret Science Reform Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Feb 24, 2015
Passed House: Mar 18, 2015

H.R. 2850 (113th): EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Jul 30, 2013
Reported by Committee: Aug 1, 2013

H.R. 1772 (113th): Legal Workforce Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Apr 26, 2013
Reported by Committee: Jun 26, 2013

H.R. 3261 (112th): Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Oct 26, 2011
Referred to Committee: Oct 26, 2011

H.Res. 1607 (111th): Disapproving Judge Walker’s Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex Marriage.
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Aug 10, 2010
Referred to Committee: Aug 10, 2010


Some samples of Lamar Smith's recent Op-Eds and other news articles are listed below:


  1. Lamar Smith (R),” The Wall Street Journal. Archived October 15, 2016. URL

  2. Biography,” Congressman Lamar Smith. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:

  3. H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act,” URL

  4. Steve Horn. “Exxon, Koch Ties May Help Explain Rep. Lamar Smith's Probing Request of 'Exxon Knew' Environmental Groups,” Desmog, June 21, 2016.

  5. Stephen Lacey. “Rep. Lamar Smith, Who Criticized ‘The Idea Of Human-Made Global Warming,’ Set To Chair House Science Panel,” ThinkProgress, November 28, 2012. URL

  6. Farron Cousins. “GOP Representative Lamar Smith On A Foolish Crusade To Discredit Climate Scientists,” Desmog, November 26, 2015.

  7. John Abraham. “Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter,”The Guardian, November 11, 2015. URL

  8. Rep. Lamar Smith: Top Industries,” Accessed October 13, 2016. URL:

  9. Lamar Smith (R-TX21),” Oil Change International. Data retrieved October 14, 2016. URL

  10. Lamar Smith. “The Climate-Change Religion,” The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. URL:

  11. Will climate change change Lamar Smith?” My SA, December 6, 2012. URL

  12. State Attorneys General Subpoenaed by Rep. Lamar Smith for Exxon Fraud Probe,” InsideClimate News, July 13, 2016. URL:

  13. (Press Release). “Smith: Paris Climate Agreement a Bad Deal for Americans,” Congressman Lamar Smith, February 2, 2016. URL

  14. (Press Release). “Smith Statement on Bills to Block EPA Regs,” Congressman Lamar Smith, December 1, 2015. URL:

  15. (Press Release). “Smith Statement on Obama Climate Plan,” Congressman Lamar Smith, September 17, 2014. URL:

  16. (Press Release). “Committee Probes SEC’s Investigation of Exxon,” Committee on Science, Space & Technology, September 29, 2016. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:

  17. “Dear Chair White:” (PDF), Congress of the United Stated House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, September 29, 2016. Archive. pdf on file at Desmog.

  18. Christine Wang. “SEC investigating Exxon Mobil on climate change, accounting practices: Report,” CNBC, September 20, 2016. URL

  19. David Hasemyer. “Lamar Smith Seeks to Affirm Exxon Climate Subpoenas With Hearing,” Inside Climate News, August 31, 2016. URL

  20. Full Committee Hearing - Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas,” Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. Archived .mp4 on file at Desmog. URL:

  21. “Dear Chairman Smith:” (PDF), State of New York Office of the Attorney General, July 26, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  22. Ben Jervey. “Who Are the Expert Witnesses Hand Picked by Lamar Smith to Testify on #ExxonKnew Subpoenas?Desmog, September 12, 2016.

  23. “Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America to The Honorable Maura Tracy Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts” (PDF), Retrieved from Documentcloud. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  24. David Hasemyer and Sabrina Shankman. “Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon Draws Attention of 17 Attorneys General,” InsideClimate News. URL:

  25. Exxon: The Road Not Taken,” InsideClimate News. URL

  26. 'There is no doubt': Exxon Knew CO2 Pollution Was A Global Threat By Late 1970s,” Desmog, April 26, 2016.

  27. Timothy Cama. “Greens fire back at House GOP over Exxon climate probe,” The Hill, July 13, 2016. Archived October 15, 2016. URL

  28. Scott K. Johnson. “Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study,” Ars Technica, February 26, 2016. URL:

  29. “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Summit” (PDF), Texas Public Policy Foundation. Notes in red by Desmog.

  30. Lisa Rein. “Congressman demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’,” The Washington Post, November 6, 2016. URL:

  31. “Dear Chairman Smith” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives, October 23, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  32. Lamar Smith. “Climate change: Seven indisputable facts,” The Hill, September 8, 2016. URL:

  33. (Press Release). “Smith: EPA Hides Truth about Climate Regulations,” Congressman Lamar Smith, August 13, 2014. URL

  34. “Dear Administrator McCarthy” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, August 13, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  35. “Dear Chairman Smith,” (PDF), Retrieved from House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  36. Farron Cousins. “With Congress Back to Work, Republican Attacks On EPA Resume,” Desmog, September 4, 2013.

  37. “Dear Administrator McCarthy” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

  38. Ruth Greenspan Bell. “For EPA Regulations, Cost Predictions Are Overstated,” World Resources Institute, November 17, 2010. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:

  39. Representative Lamar S. Smith,” Independence Ave. Archived January 25, 2012. URL:

  40. Legislation Search for sponsor: Smith, Lamar (Rep.) [R-TX21], Accessed October 15, 2016.

  41. “Lamar Smith’s bully tactics cross the line,” San Antonio Express-News, October 18, 2016. Archived October 18, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. URL:

  42. Andrew Follett. “Obama's NASA Budget Is All About Global Warming, Not Space,” The Daily Caller News Foundation, February 10, 2016. Archived October 18, 2016. URL:

  43. At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” Heritage Foundation, December 8, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. URL

  44. Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. URL

  45. Part 1 - At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” YouTube video (timestamp 11:20) uploaded by user The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. 

Other Resources