Texas Congressman Lamar Smith has had an eventful run as chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology so far. And his most colorful highlights revolve around climate science. Smith, who rejects the central conclusions of climate scientists, has been demanding the e-mails of NOAA scientists, whom he has accused of manipulating data for a 2015 study published in the journal Science, even though that work is publicly available, independently replicated, and scientifically uncontroversial.

Recently, he has turned his focus to several state attorneys general who are pursuing investigations of Exxon Mobil. Some recent media reports revealed that Exxon’s own climate research in the 1970s and '80s concluded that climate change was human-caused. But the company later reversed course and campaigned to block any climate policies. Several investigations are now looking at whether, in doing so, Exxon misled its shareholders. The investigations are modeled after the cases brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s.

In May, Smith subpoenaed 17 attorneys general and eight environmental groups for any communications related to these investigations, describing them as “a coordinated attempt to attack the First Amendment rights of American citizens.”

The groups basically responded by ignoring the subpoenas, arguing that the House committee simply had no authority to make those demands of them. They also argued that securities fraud is not a First Amendment issue.

On July 6, Smith sent a fresh batch of subpoena letters to the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, as well as several of the nongovernmental organizations. The letters make it clear that Smith feels the House committee does have authority and that free speech is his concern, because the Exxon investigation subpoenas cover communications between the oil company and external parties like think tanks or researchers.

Once again pressing the boundaries of irony, the letters state, “Protecting the ability of these scientists—and all scientists—to conduct research uninhibited by the potential adverse effects of investigations by law enforcement is a goal of this Committee.” A committee that is still pressing to see e-mails exchanged by climate scientists at NOAA.

At a press conference announcing these letters, Smith added, “It is regrettable that two state attorneys general and several organizations continue to threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change.”

Curiously, the July 6 letter mentions subpoenas from the Attorney General of the US Virgin Islands as exemplifying the targeting of individuals outside Exxon, but those subpoenas were dropped on July 2.

The letters targeting nongovernmental organizations are especially bewildering. They imply that these NGOs are stifling the first amendment rights of an organization by calling for an investigation into it. By the same logic, the Committee is also suppressing the NGO's First Amendment rights. No matter to Smith, who states that “The Committee maintains that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is not an impenetrable shield to Congressional inquiry.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), who leads the Democrats on the House Science Committee, has only ratcheted up her criticism of Smith. In a June 23 letter, Rep. Johnson not only argues that Smith has misrepresented the Exxon investigations, but asserts that his subpoenas are unconstitutional. “A Congressional document demand to a state attorney general is exceptionally unusual. Such a demand from the Science Committee is unheard of,” she writes.

I have served on the Committee on Science for more than two decades, and during that time this Committee has accomplished great things. We’ve overseen the completion of the International Space Station and the sequencing of the human genome, and we’ve undertaken serious investigations, ranging from the Space Shuttle Challenger accident to the environmental crimes at the Rocky Flats nuclear site. However, lately the Committee on Science has seemed more like a Committee on Harassment. The Committee’s prolific, aimless, and jurisdictionally questionable oversight activities have grown increasingly mean-spirited and meaningless. They frequently appear to be designed primarily to generate press releases. However, none of these recent investigations has rushed head long into a serious Constitutional crisis like we are about to face. We are moving into dangerous and uncharted territory.

The groups subpoenaed by Smith appear unswayed by the newest letters, so the show is likely to go on.

Listing image by NASA