Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This legislation reflects how Congress can work in a bipartisan way to address difficult issues that our constituents are facing. The deaths of Brycen Gray and Ben Price due to COVID psychosis were unexpected and tragic. While their memories will live on through their families and friends, we can give them a further memorial through the passage of this legislation and, hopefully, prevent more tragedies like this in the future. H.R. 7180 represents a grassroots effort to address the issue in a thoughtful and meaningful way. Again, I thank my friend Mr. Gonzalez for championing this legislation. Many times, people who observe this body may think it is all about political tit-for-tat or it is about making noise or directing time and energy in a fashion that is less than productive. What Congressman Gonzalez has demonstrated here today in the case of both Brycen and Ben is that we are people, too, as Members. This tragedy touched Mr. Gonzalez and compelled him to respond legislatively to make sure that other families can be spared what the Grays and Prices have gone through. It is a testament to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez) and a statement that we are basically good and decent people in this place. We just need to focus on the priorities that are important to our fellow Americans as Congressman Gonzalez is doing today. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7606 because American farmers and ranchers deserve real assistance, real relief, real policy solutions. To understand my opposition, you must understand the part of the country that I represent and was raised in. The Third District of Oklahoma was the epicenter of the drought, the Dust Bowl, and the economic depression of the 1930s. This was a time when horrible weather conditions collided with misguided Federal ag and misguided Federal monetary policy to create an environment that profoundly changed the region that my family has called home for over 120 years. I was raised on these stories, and it was their experiences that shaped my view on what the role of the Federal Government should be. The Federal Government should be passing and enacting policies that help people and businesses, not hinder them. Unfortunately, the Biden administration and House Democrats seem to not hold that same view. During the past 5 years, American farmers and ranchers have weathered volatile world markets, devastating natural disasters, prolonged droughts, supply chain disruptions, ever-increasing input costs, and soaring inflation. Yet, the only thing the Biden administration and House Democrats seem interested in doing is increasing regulatory burdens, limiting access to fuel, and passing spending packages that fuel inflation. Mr. Speaker, if House Democrats were truly interested in providing relief for American farmers and ranchers, they would join my Republican colleagues and me in calling for the Biden administration to reinstate the Trump-era Waters of the United States rule and rescind the Biden administration's WOTUS rule. If Democrats were interested in reducing the cost of farm inputs like fertilizer and fuel, they would work with us to restore and expand domestic energy production. They would join us in calling for the Biden administration to rescind the SEC's proposed rule on climate-related disclosure. This rule is not only a ploy to divert capital away from traditional energy investments, it also requires farmers, regardless of size, to track and report environmental data to public companies with which they work. Finally, House Democrats are touting this bill as a solution to the issue of consolidation in the meatpacking industry. As we all know, DOJ--yes, the Department of Justice--is in the middle of an ongoing investigation into the meatpacking industry, an investigation that was launched under the Trump administration. I feel strongly that if there is collusion, manipulation, or other wrongdoing by packers, then the existing law should be enforced under the existing authorities at USDA and DOJ. There are civil and criminal penalties if violations are found. Changing those authorities or laws in the middle of an ongoing investigation only helps to confuse and complicate the eventual DOJ findings. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this messaging bill and join with me in calling for real solutions for American farmers and ranchers.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2543. The U.S. economy faces tremendous challenges. We have 40-year high inflation, persistent supply chain disruptions, and tight labor markets. The American people are grappling with increased costs across every aspect of their life. Food is more expensive, energy and gasoline prices have skyrocketed, and the cost of housing is surging. In 1977, when I first started out as a young farmer, we slid into the inflationary period of the Carter years, and went through Chairman Volker's dramatic tightening of the money supply. This period was devastating to my neighbors and the entire U.S. economy, and left a profound impact on how I view fiscal and monetary policy. Now is not the time to take the Federal Reserve's eyes off the ball. Congress should be focused on the issues that currently weigh on the economy and aim to strengthen the financial well-being of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2543.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for yielding and for introducing this legislation. H.R. 5324, the NOAA Weather Radio Modernization Act of 2021, is a straightforward, lifesaving bill introduced by my esteemed colleague from Oklahoma, Representative Stephanie Bice, who is the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee. Last week, nearly the entire State of Oklahoma experienced an outbreak in severe weather and a number of confirmed tornadoes. That is not uncommon for this time of year, and our citizens were well prepared. While there was significant damage and widespread power outages, there have been no confirmed deaths at this point. That is because of the lifesaving efforts of NOAA, the National Weather Service, and warning capabilities like the NOAA Weather Radio, also known as NWR. Day or night, power or no power, in a rural area or in the heart of the city, an NWR device loudly alerts you and your family to severe weather nearby. Most Oklahomans have grown up listening to these announcements, and we know to act when we hear them. That saves lives. But since NWR was designated as the sole government provider of direct warnings to private homes in 1975, the system has gone through few upgrades other than broadly expanding access across the country. The NWR's aging infrastructure has led to increased maintenance costs and more frequent outages. The copper wiring that connects broadcast transmitters to Weather Service stations has become obsolete and expensive. More powerful storms require backup options and stronger signals in case of extensive damage to mission critical facilities. The NWR Modernization Act addresses these challenges and gives NOAA the authority and resources to ensure the NWR is as useful in the 21st century as it has been for the last four decades. This legislation continues to expand access to NWR, but does so while ensuring the system does not become obsolete with out-of-date technology.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Environment Subcommittee, Ranking Member Bice and Chairwoman Sherrill, for leading on this critical issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would simply note that we pass lots of pieces of legislation in this body every session. But every so often, we address a piece of legislation that makes a real difference in the lives of people, a piece of legislation that deserves to move as swiftly as possible through the process to enable its implementation. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank all of my colleagues, and I urge a yes vote.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of March 30, 2022, I offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4521.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to instruct the conferees on our competitiveness legislation. This motion instructs conference members to agree to section 2502 of the Senate legislation. This section is simple and common sense. It says that no person or entity of concern can receive grants, awards, or other support from the National Science Foundation, federally funded manufacturing programs, or technology hubs authorized by this legislation. A person or entity of concern is generally defined by the Department of Defense as directed by Congress in previous Defense Reauthorization Acts. DOD has identified entities of concern as Communist Chinese military companies and companies owned or controlled by the People's Liberation Army, and they have defined persons of concern as individuals affiliated with these CCP military entities. Simply put, this motion ensures that we aren't giving taxpayer dollars to the adversaries who are trying to steal U.S. technology and use it against us. The Senate was right to add this important guardrail, and it is only responsible that we urge our House conferees to ensure it is included in the final conferenced legislation. I would like to point out that we wouldn't have this particular difference in our bills had the process of passing the House legislation been done in regular order. The COMPETES Act was developed in a back room by the Speaker's office with very little input or review from relevant committees. Although thoroughly vetted and bipartisan Science Committee bills were included in that package, they were sandwiched in among unrelated, partisan spending that added up to a backdoor attempt to pass parts of the Build Back Better Act. Because of this rushed, opaque bill-writing process, unsurprisingly, the COMPETES Act had a lot of flaws. Despite less than 3 days to review the bill text, Members submitted more than 600 amendments to the bill. But the Rules Committee, with very little input, made in order only 261; and of that number, only three Republican amendments were given individual debate time on the floor, with all other Republican amendments being considered en bloc. Not only did Members have little opportunity to write this bill, but they also had almost no opportunity to fix its flaws. I could go on about the danger of passing massive bills like this out of regular order, but for now I will focus on this particular issue. This provision preventing funds from going to Chinese military entities and persons of concern was submitted as a part of multiple Republican amendments to the Rules Committee, but none of these amendments were made in order. I fail to see how amendments limiting taxpayer funds from going to China isn't relevant to a bill about competitiveness with China. Democrats' failure to include similar language in the COMPETES Act is an unfortunate example of an unwillingness to be strong on China and protect our national security. But we have a chance to rectify that now. Madam Speaker, surely we can all agree that we shouldn't be sending taxpayer dollars to Communist leadership in China. They are already stealing our discoveries and using them to surpass us economically and militarily. We are spending the time, money, and effort to plant the seeds of new technologies, but China is the one harvesting the crop. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass legislation to improve U.S. technology and to set us up to be globally competitive for the coming decade. The Science Committee has spent 2 years preparing for this opportunity. Working together, Republicans and Democrats held meetings with stakeholders, conducted in-depth hearings, and individually marked up more than a dozen bills to strategically scale-up America's research and development capacities. Those bills all passed out of committee unanimously, and many passed across the floor with strong bipartisan support. They double down on investment in basic research at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science and National Labs, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They also direct the creation and regular review of a national science and technology strategy, as well as improving STEM education and regional research opportunities. The Science Committee bills are targeted to the areas where government investment is most needed and will give us the biggest reward. We ensure our approach is strategic, focusing on the technologies of the future like quantum sciences, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. We will keep America competitive and secure and help create good jobs here at home. This legislation should be the foundation for the conference legislation, not the COMPETES Act, which is more of a climate change bill than a technology bill, and not the bill formerly known as USICA, which is a grab-bag of special interest provisions cobbled together into a franken-bill. There is a lot of chaff to separate from the wheat of this bill, but I believe we can come to smart, consensus policy through the conference. The Science Committee worked together to pass strong bipartisan legislation, and I think our process, as well as our end result, should serve as a model moving forward. I am looking forward to getting to work and paring down these bills to the smart policies we need. It is urgent that we act now. Democratic leadership delayed the legislation for 9 months. I assure you the Chinese Communist Party isn't doing the same. Let's stop playing politics with something so important. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this motion, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I believe I have the right to close, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank my colleagues for their words of support for this motion. As I said when we began this debate, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to strengthen U.S. science and technology and secure a place in the global economy. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has passed strategic, bipartisan legislation to do just that. Our bills double our investment in critical research and technology. They are a strong commitment to America's technological development. There is no question that our bills should be the core of the final conferenced legislation. We can't afford to pollute these critical policies with partisan poison pills and throw away our deliberate, strategic approach for long-term growth in favor of the one-time spending spree in the COMPETES Act. There is a difference between empty spending and making an investment. The COMPETES Act is empty, unfocused spending. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has passed targeted, bipartisan investments in research and technology. They will pay off in more jobs, a stronger economy, and a more secure homeland. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support that approach and to support guardrails to ensure that our taxpayer investments aren't going to Communist leadership in China. That is why this motion is so important. This isn't a partisan issue. It has been part of Senator Schumer's legislative text on competitiveness from day one. That is because this is basic, commonsense policy, and I can't imagine that any of our constituents would disagree with that. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to pass this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4521, the so-called ``America COMPETES Act of 2022.'' And I regret the path the Democratic leadership has taken with bringing this bill to the floor. Some will call this a ``competitiveness package'' or a ``supply chain'' bill. Others claim the bill is about countering the Chinese Communist Party. But the truth is that it is none of those things. If this 3,000-page bill seems to have no coherence or strategic purpose, that's because it doesn't. This package was tossed together by Democratic leadership with no Republican input, and from what I understand with very little coordination between the Committee chairs. The Speaker hijacked good bipartisan bills dealing with U.S. competitiveness and countering the malign influence of China to pass another Democratic wish list that will go nowhere in the Senate. By combining competitiveness bills with partisan poison pills, H.R. 4521 undoes more than a year of bipartisan work by the House Science Committee to develop and pass comprehensive legislation to double investment in basic research. As Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I was proud to work with Chairwoman Johnson to produce good policy that will double our investment in basic science, support the most important emerging technologies, build our technical workforce, and protect our research from theft. The House Science Committee passed more than a dozen bills to scale-up America's research and development capabilities over the next decade, ensuring the Chinese Communist Party does not achieve its goal of overtaking the U.S. in science and technology, giving them a dangerous economic and national security advantage. At the center of our work is the National Science for the Future Act and the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act, which both passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in June. When we passed those bills, I had high hopes that for once, Congress might be able to work together to get something done. The economic and national security threats from China grow every day, and the Chinese Communist Party has been clear that their target is to surpass the United States. The Senate has passed their own bipartisan package, the U.S. innovation and Competition Act (USICA) in June. While there are many flaws in USICA, I believe that we had a good opportunity to find a consensus agreement through a formal House and Senate Conference. I have been urging Democratic leadership to begin conferencing these bills with the Senate since the summer, to no avail. And now that House Democratic leadership has finally decided to act, and they have done so with no regard for all this bipartisan work. Instead of focusing on strong consensus policies, this package is filled with poison pills with no bipartisan support. There was no need to make this partisan. I believe that if given the opportunity we could have passed legislation that invests in American research, strengthens our supply chains, spurs private sector investment, ensures the domestic production of semiconductor chips, and confronts China's malign behavior. This bill is nothing more than a distraction. Now I fear that this week's exercise will make it more difficult to reach a bicameral, bipartisan deal on a bill. We cannot afford to play politics while the Chinese Communist Party threatens our economic and national security. I urge my colleagues to come back to the table to negotiate strategic, bipartisan legislation that addresses this generational threat. I ask my colleagues to oppose this flawed, partisan package.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Federal takeover of elections. I am disappointed that the underlying bill has been gutted, a bill that was crafted in a bipartisan, practical way to address the surplus resources at NASA to generate resources for the agency. I would say this to my friends in the majority: I have served in the minority and the majority several times back and forth. I ask you, why are you trying so hard to make me a chairman again? We pass a bill today to allow another body to pontificate. They will not be able to pass anything. You will inflame your base because you can't do anything. You will inflame my base because you are trying to make dramatic changes. Why are you trying to make it so easy for me to be a chairman again? I guess I should thank you, and I would, except for things like this missed opportunity to reauthorize this important piece of legislation for NASA. When we have committees like Science, Space, and Technology that work together, that work in a productive way, that can persuade the majority of this body to pass their legislation, we should allow the legislative process to work. Thank you, my friends. I look forward to the next session.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I stand today before this deliberative body to talk about the importance of rural infrastructure; more specifically, watershed and flood control infrastructure. Our Nation's watershed dams play a critical yet silent role in many of our daily lives. Across the Nation, watershed projects provide an estimated annual benefit of $2.2 billion in reduced flood and erosion damage and improving wildlife, habitat, recreation, and water supply for more than 47 million people. In my home State of Oklahoma alone, there are more than 2,000 watershed dam projects that help Oklahomans meet a myriad of public needs: public safety, water supply, soil health, and fish and wildlife management, just to name a few. In fact, the country's first upstream flood control dam, Cloud Creek Site No. 1, was built right in the backyard of my district in Washita County. Built in 1948, following the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the dam allowed for the preservation of farmland, wildlife, and several municipal services. Fast forward to today, and many of our country's 12,000 watershed dams have exceeded their designed lifespan. Like so much of the public infrastructure investments across this country, our watershed dams are aging and need to be upgraded to remain safe and continue to provide benefits for generations to come. Seeing the need to rehabilitate many of our dams, in 2000 I authored the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments which have provided important investments to help countless dams in need of repair. After more than two decades of funding through the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments, more than $900 million has been appropriated for rehabilitating aging dams. In the 2018 farm bill alone, we provided $50 million per year in mandatory funding for watershed rehabilitation and management. I am proud to mark the 20th anniversary of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments being signed into law this past year, but we must not delay the continued need to rehabilitate and repair other aging dams and water infrastructure. These silent sentinels are vital to public safety, economic prosperity, community viability and must not be allowed to fail. We learned a lot of lessons 20 years ago in passing the dam rehabilitation bill. Now we must continue this mission as we debate and consider infrastructure legislation. Madam Speaker, to aid in these efforts, I include in the Record the brought forth report at damsafety.org \ smallwatershed. In closing, as Congress negotiates on how best to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, we must continue to invest in the rehabilitation of these aging public works. It is time to put the lessons of past appropriate investment to good use and build the capacity of a new generation to protect critical infrastructures for decades to come.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2225, the National Science Foundation for the Future Act. This legislation is one of two Science Committee bills under consideration today to reinforce America's global scientific leadership and fend off competition from the Chinese Communist Party. Together, the NSF for the Future Act and the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act represent a comprehensive and sustainable approach to building American competitiveness. Before I discuss the specifics of the NSF for the Future Act, I want to emphasize why it is so critical we act now to counter the threat from the Communist leadership in China and reinvest in American science and technology. Make no mistake, this is a threat. For years, China has been working to steal, both literally and figuratively, our playbook for innovation. That is because leading the world in science and technology gives you a significant advantage when it comes to national security, cybersecurity, and economic growth. It is no wonder, then, that we have seen the Chinese Communist Party pursue a technological advantage over us through forced acquisitions, malign foreign talent programs, and intellectual property theft. They are also outspending us, plain and simple. China's R&D spending increased more than 50 percent between 2011 and 2016. In that same period, our investment fell by 12 percent, in absolute terms. There is no question, we must act now to redouble our commitment to American research and development if we are to remain the global leader in science and technology. This issue is so important that even our colleagues in the Senate have decided to address it. And while some legislative observers have noted that their approach to this has been less organized and focused, I appreciate that they recognize the urgency of the problem we are facing. While the Senate chose to tack on countless special interest provisions, the House Science Committee approached this in a deliberative manner, spending more than a year working with stakeholders in government, academia, and industry to identify the best way to invest in our research enterprise and support American competitiveness. The result is two bipartisan bills that significantly increase research funding while adding strong protections to keep it safe from foreign theft. The NSF for the Future Act doubles funding for basic research over 5 years, investing a total of $78 billion. It also includes $13 billion in funding for a new Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions, focused on translating the discoveries funded by the foundation into solutions that can be applied to national and societal challenges. H.R. 2225 helps expand our STEM workforce so that, as we create the technological jobs of the future, we are also developing American workers to fill them. It invests in STEM education at every level, from pre-K to post-doc programs, ensuring all Americans have access to high- quality STEM resources. Our bill also expands the geographic diversity of American R&D by building research capabilities at minority-serving institutions and universities outside of the top 100 research institutions. Importantly, the NSF for the Future Act has a strong focus on protecting taxpayer-funded research from adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran. Among the protections included in the bill is a provision that prohibits any grant recipients from participating in malign talent recruitment programs, like the Thousand Talents program. Protections like these are all the more important as we increase investments in our research enterprise. H.R. 2225 is a strategic and sustainable approach to investing in America science and technology. I would like to thank my colleague, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, for all of the work she has done with me to get this bill before the floor today. At every step in this process, Science Committee Republicans and Democrats have worked together to identify the challenges we face and craft the strongest possible legislation to support American competitiveness. That is due in large part to the chairwoman's leadership and our shared commitment to making sure America has the best research and development enterprise in the world. Mr. Speaker, with U.S. leadership in science and technology at risk, the U.S. must recommit to supporting basic research, cutting-edge facilities, and a thriving domestic STEM workforce. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to take action now by supporting the NSF for the Future Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), the ranking member of the Research and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), the ranking member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee.